[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 106 (Thursday, July 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8041-S8087]
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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 986

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to consider the 
amendment of the Senator from California, which is to be considered 
under a pending time agreement.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Now, if we may turn to something which is of very deep concern. The

[[Page S8042]]

amendment that I have sent to the desk is on behalf of the ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy; the Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray; my colleague from California, Senator Boxer; 
and the two Senators from Nevada, Senators Reid and Bryan. The 
amendment is an amendment to strike and substitute language. The 
section we would strike from the bill is section 305, which splits the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on an appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, this legislation which I am presenting serves as a 
substitute to a nongermane provision of the fiscal year 1998 
appropriations bill for Commerce, State, Justice.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will.
  Mr. GREGG. I am sorry to break in. I was wondering if the Senator 
would agree to reducing the time of this amendment down to 3 hours 
equally divided?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that, under the prior order on 
this amendment, the time be reduced to 3 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this bill, with no hearing, no due 
diligence, no consultation with the ninth circuit--any of its judges, 
attorneys, bar associations within the circuit--splits the circuit, and 
I would like to show you how it splits the circuit. It creates a 
twelfth circuit which would comprise Washington, Arizona, Alaska, 
Oregon, Hawaii, Idaho, and Montana. If you look at the map--separate 
and distinct, alone--separated from the rest, would be the State of 
Arizona. The proposal would leave in the ninth circuit only two 
States--the States of California and Nevada--along with the territories 
of Guam and the Marianas.
  Now, what is wrong with that? First of all, the way in which it is 
done, which I will address in detail. But second, it creates two 
unequal circuits. The ninth circuit and Nevada would have close to 35 
million people and the twelfth circuit would have 16 million people. 
But look at the proposed distribution of the judges. It would 
distribute 15 judges to the ninth circuit and 13 judges to the 
remainder--an unequal, unfair distribution of judges.
  Here is what the effect would be. In the ninth circuit, you would 
have 363 cases per judge. In the new twelfth circuit, each judge would 
have just 239 cases. So the judges of the ninth circuit would 
immediately have caseloads 52 percent higher than the judges of the 
twelfth circuit.
  Mr. President, the real point is that there is already a resolution 
to this issue. It was passed by the Senate last session, and it has 
already passed the House. The resolution is legislation that calls for 
a study of all of the circuits, with special emphasis on the ninth 
circuit.
  The substitute amendment that I am offering today to form a study 
commission passed the House of Representatives unanimously in June. 
This bill is identical to the House-passed bill. The study commission 
represents, I believe, the only principled approach to dealing with an 
issue as important and far-reaching as the structure of the U.S. courts 
of appeals.
  If I may, Mr. President, there has never been a division of a circuit 
court without careful study and without the support of the judges and 
the lawyers within the circuit who represent the public they serve. 
There has never been a division of any circuit in this manner--
arbitrary, political, and gerrymandered. As a member of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, I am deeply concerned that the legislation to 
split the ninth circuit has been included in this appropriations bill 
with no hearing, no study, no due diligence as to its impact. Section 
305 of the bill contains language for this split. It is a misuse, in my 
view, of the appropriations process.
  Yesterday, Representative Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee, wrote a strongly worded letter, which was 
circulated broadly. I would like to quote from it.

       I understand that this week the Senate is expected to 
     consider S. 1022, the Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary 
     appropriations bill. Included in the bill is a major piece of 
     substantive legislation, the ``Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
     Reorganization Act of 1997.'' This provision of the bill 
     (section 305) would amend Title 28 of the United States Code 
     by dividing the existing Ninth Circuit into two circuits. As 
     you well know, altering the structure of the federal judicial 
     system is a serious matter. It is something that Congress 
     does rarely, and only after careful consideration.
       It is anticipated that an amendment will be offered to 
     replace the circuit division rider with legislation to create 
     a commission--

  That is what I am trying to do at this time--

     to study the courts of appeals and report recommendations on 
     possible change. This legislation, H.R. 908, has already 
     passed the House unanimously on a voice vote on June 3, 1997. 
     A similar bill, S. 956, was passed unanimously by the Senate 
     in the 104th Congress. This is a far superior way of dealing 
     with the problems of caseload growth in the Ninth Circuit and 
     other courts of appeals. I urge your support for the 
     amendment.
       Sincerely, Henry Hyde, Chairman.

  So the House is on record supporting a study. The chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee of the House writes this letter, and yet this split 
is in the bill. The administration has issued a strong statement to the 
Senate Appropriations Committee indicating its support for a study 
commission and its opposition to the inclusion of such far-reaching 
legislation in an appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I hope the President will veto this bill if it should 
contain an arbitrary split of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--a 
split done politically, as a form of gerrymandering.
  In a letter dated July 11, Gov. Pete Wilson reiterated his support 
for the commission study and stated that the present effort to split 
the circuit involves judicial gerrymandering, apparently designed, and 
I quote, ``to cordon off some judges in one circuit while keeping 
others in another because of concerns, whether perceived or real, over 
particular judges' perspectives or judicial philosophy.''
  Less than 2 weeks ago, when Governor Wilson wrote this letter, there 
was a proposal that would have divided the ninth circuit into three 
circuits and split California in half. Then there was another proposal 
that would have left California and Hawaii in a two-State circuit, the 
first time in history that a Federal judicial circuit would have 
consisted of fewer than three States.
  In a matter of hours, an amendment was made to the bill, and we have 
the latest proposal which keeps California whole, teams it with Nevada, 
isolating a geographical neighbor, Arizona, and placing Arizona with 
Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Idaho, Alaska, and Montana. Mr. President, 
I respectfully submit this is not the way to do the people's legal 
business. This is not the way to restructure the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  Let me offer some history. I authored the first proposal to create a 
commission on structural alternatives for the Federal courts of appeal 
in the 104th Congress during a markup session in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee on December 8, 1985. If that had been passed, the job would 
have been done by now. The Senate ultimately passed legislation to 
create a study commission during that Congress on March 20.
  As noted above, in the present Congress, a commission bill identical 
to the one I am offering today unanimously passed the House. So both 
Houses of Congress have spoken on this issue and both Houses of 
Congress have said if the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should be 
split, no due diligence, consult the judges, consult the attorneys who 
practice before it, look at the precedents, see that there is study, 
thought and consideration to what would be the best split. None of this 
has been done. In a matter of a week, four separate proposals have been 
put forward and changed with no opportunity for anyone who practices 
law in the ninth circuit, the huge ninth circuit, to indicate what the 
impact of those proposals might be.
  The House-passed bill was modeled on a proposal I introduced with 
Senator Reid on January 30, 1997. The House Judiciary Subcommittee 
Chairman Coble and Chairman Hyde moved the bill with the support and 
cosponsorship of Representative Berman. The current H.R. 908 represents 
a compromise that was worked out in the House and endorsed by every 
House Republican and Democrat.

[[Page S8043]]

  I should note that the House-passed bill is very similar to a 
compromise on a study commission that Senator Burns and I reached 
together just a few months ago. This all began with Senator Burns. I 
understand his concerns. He has legitimate interests, legitimate 
thoughts, and I appreciate them. The last I had heard was Senator Burns 
signed off on the study commission. So you can imagine the surprise 
when I heard. My goodness, this is on an appropriations bill. And 
Members of this body have taken it on themselves to arbitrarily just 
decide, willy-nilly, how the ninth circuit should be split.
  The House-passed commission study is fully bipartisan, a 10-member 
commission. The commission would operate for 18 months, at which time 
it would make recommendations to Congress for any changes in circuit 
structure or alignment.
  I don't think we should subject something as important as the 
structure of our courts to political gamesmanship, and that is just 
what this is. The study called for in H.R. 908 is a responsible method 
of evaluating the current situation and making recommendations that can 
provide a sound foundation for Congressional action in the future.
  A study is needed to determine whether this or any proposed circuit 
division would be likely to improve the administration of justice in 
the region. That is the fundamental question: Would a split improve the 
administration of justice, and, if so, what should that split be? Even 
among those who believe that some kind of split should occur, there is 
no consensus as to where any circuit boundary lines might be redrawn.
  During the 105th Congress, proponents of a circuit split put forward 
these four proposals. One would have split the north from the 
southernmost States of the circuit. The second would have chopped the 
existing circuit into three separate circuits and split California in 
half. The third would have created a narrow stringbean circuit. That 
was the same proposal that failed to pass the Senate during the 104th 
Congress.

  The current proposal, which represents at least the fourth proposal 
in the 105th Congress, is a modification of the stringbean circuit. 
Again, no due diligence, no hearings, no study, no testimony--nothing.
  As I noted before, the proposal isolates Arizona. It combines Nevada. 
It separates coastal States that have common maritime law. And that is 
why I say it is gerrymandering. I say if it looks like a gerrymander, 
talks like a gerrymander, it probably is a gerrymander.
  Let's talk about the costs inherent in what is happening here today. 
If this bill passes and should go into law, splitting the circuit will 
require duplicative offices of clerk of the court, circuit executive, 
staff attorneys, settlement attorneys and library as well as 
courtrooms, mail and computer facilities. According to the ninth 
circuit executive office, neither Phoenix nor Seattle currently have 
facilities capable of housing a court of appeals headquarters 
operation.
  As part of the review of last year's similar proposal to split the 
circuit, the GSA estimated that it would cost a minimum of $23 million 
to construct new facilities for a headquarters in Phoenix, and I would 
be very surprised if it was as little as $23 million. Based on GSA 
costs, the ninth circuit executive has estimated that building and 
renovation costs for creating or upgrading new headquarters in Seattle 
and Phoenix would amount to at least $56 million. Additional combined 
outlay of another $6 million in startup costs would be needed to outfit 
both Phoenix and Seattle.
  The CBO last year estimated the cost of duplicative staff positions 
at $1 million annually. The new proposal calls for two coequal clerks 
of the court in the twelfth circuit. Assuming each clerk would have the 
customary deputy clerk and staff attorney, an additional $300,000 in 
salaries would be added to the total. So the new twelfth circuit would 
cost an additional $1.3 million annually for duplicate salaries, and 
minimum of $25 million in Phoenix and an additional amount for Seattle. 
It is estimated the cost would run in the neighborhood of $60 million.
  This wouldn't be so bad if there just hadn't been approved and spent 
$140 million to rehabilitate and seismically equip the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals in the city of San Francisco and Pasadena--$140 
million has just been spent. I just visited the San Francisco ninth 
circuit. It compares with the U.S. Capitol. There is a brand-new 
library already built in, magnificent chambers, one library that is 
solid redwood, marble that is incredible, lighting fixtures that go 
back well over 100 years. It is an amazing and beautiful building.
  Under the configuration of States proposed for the new twelfth 
circuit, the circuit executive estimates that upward of 50 percent of 
the space recently renovated in San Francisco and Pasadena at a cost of 
$140 million would no longer be needed. The space was specifically 
designed to meet the business needs of the court of appeals. The 
executive office estimates, ``It would cost many tens of millions of 
dollars to modify the space to make it usable by tenants other than the 
court of appeals.''
  Let me talk for a minute about the real risk of an impetuous 
political and gerrymandered split of the ninth circuit.
  Forum shopping: Organizations and entities whose activities cut 
across State lines, and those who sue them, would be able to forum shop 
to take advantage of favorable precedents or to avoid those that are 
unfavorable. And I suspect, frankly speaking, that this is just what is 
behind this split. Thus, an additional burden would be placed on the 
U.S. Supreme Court to resolve conflicts that are now handled internally 
within the circuit.
  Here are some examples provided by the ninth circuit of how dividing 
it could invite forum shopping: water disputes concerning the Colorado 
River, which affect California, Nevada, and Arizona; commercial 
disputes between large contractors like Boeing and McDonald--perhaps 
that is resolved now--or Microsoft and Intel; different legal 
precedents affecting the shipping industry along the coastline of the 
continental United States and Hawaii.

  Think of the complications created if different commercial and 
maritime rules governed the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Tacoma 
and Hawaii. The ninth circuit includes a vast expanse of coastal area, 
all subject to the same Federal law on cargo loading, on seaman's 
wages, on personal injury, and maritime employment. Vessels plying the 
coast stop frequently at ports in California, Washington, Alaska, 
Hawaii and the Pacific territories. If the circuit were to be divided, 
seamen would have an incentive to forum shop among port districts in 
order to predetermine the most sympathetic court of appeals to hear the 
case.
  In the commercial law area, all of the States in the circuit have 
considerable economic relations with California because of its large 
and diverse population. In a recent case, Vizcaino v. Microsoft, the 
ninth circuit decided to hear a case en banc concerning whether 
Microsoft contractors were entitled to the same ERISA benefits and 
stock options as were regular employees. Microsoft is a large 
corporation with primary offices in Washington but significant business 
operations in California. If the ninth circuit were split, Microsoft or 
its employees might choose to bring a lawsuit in either the ninth or 
twelfth circuit, in hopes of finding a more sympathetic court.
  The judges and lawyers of the ninth circuit overwhelmingly oppose 
what is happening in this bill. Let me repeat that. The lawyers and 
judges in all of the ninth circuit States overwhelmingly oppose what is 
happening in this State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill.
  On four occasions, the Federal judges in the ninth circuit and the 
practicing lawyers in the ninth circuit judicial conference have voted 
their opposition to splitting the circuit. The official bar 
organizations of Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana and 
Nevada, and the National Federal Bar Association, all have taken 
positions against circuit division. No State bar organization in the 
circuit has taken a position in favor of circuit division or what is 
happening in this bill.
  Candidly speaking, this is a political decision of Senators of the 
Appropriations Committee to affect the legal business of 50 million 
people in the United States with an arbitrary split, gerrymandered, of 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Candidly speaking,

[[Page S8044]]

also, the ninth circuit is large. California alone is predicted to be 
50 million people by the year 2025.
  Whether the circuit should be split or not, I can't say. I strongly 
believe it is a decision that should not be made, however, either 
politically or in a cavalier fashion. The decision should not be made 
without study, without hearing, without comment from those lawyers and 
judges whose clients are affected by it.
  If--and I say if--the circuit is eventually split, it should be the 
product of diligence, of study, of hearing, of commentary. It should be 
part of an analysis of how the circuit courts are functioning in the 
United States. There may well be a better split involving other States. 
I don't know, and I would hazard a guess that no one in this Chamber 
knows that either.
  But this does mean a careful study of population should be 
undertaken. It means an even distribution of caseload by judge, not a 
rammed-through circuit split that has a 52 percent higher caseload for 
judges in this new ninth circuit than in the twelfth circuit. On its 
face, it is patently unfair. Anybody who looks at any split that says 
you split it so that one set of judges has double the number of cases 
than the other--that doesn't meet a simple test of fairness.
  There should be a careful study of precedents, of commercial law, of 
maritime law, of the other aspects of precedents. California now has 
the largest consumer market in the United States in Los Angeles; the 
third largest in the San Francisco Bay area. It is a huge consumer 
market, and it is going to be bigger with all kinds of 
intercommunication among these States.
  There should be a study of costs. I pointed out the duplication of 
staff, I pointed out the need for two new courthouses when two already 
have been refurbished at a cost of $140 million for the taxpayers. All 
of this is being done without any study, any hearing, any commentary. 
It is not something of which this great body can be proud.
  I notice that the distinguished Senator from Nevada is here, and if I 
might ask him, I believe he would like 10 minutes? I will be happy to 
yield to him.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator from California wouldn't 
mind, I would like to go from side to side.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to do that.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Washington 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there can be no serious argument posed to 
Members in body that it is not appropriate, maybe beyond appropriate, 
for all practical purposes necessary, for the proper administration of 
justice that the U.S. Court of Appeals--almost twice as large as the 
next largest court of appeals and almost three times as large in 
population and in caseload as the average circuit--should not be 
divided.
  Twenty-three years ago, a commission, the Hruska Commission, said the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was too large and should be divided; 
that no circuit court of appeals should have more than 15 judges. The 
reasons, of course, is collegiality, the prompt and effective 
administration of justice. Any other argument is simply a matter of 
delay, simply a matter of a maintenance of the status quo.
  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should be divided. There have been 
bills on this subject and hearings on this subject in most of the 
Congresses from 1975, 22 years ago, to date. The very proposal that is 
before us right now, with minor changes, was recommended by the 
Judiciary Committee in the last Congress and did not come to a vote 
because it was clear that it would be filibustered as an independent 
vote. That is at least one of the reasons that when he comes to the 
floor, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will recommend the 
rejection of this amendment and supports the division that is included 
in this bill.
  But, Mr. President, before I get back to the merits of the proposal, 
I want to express my deep concern over some portions of the opposition 
that come to this bill from California and perhaps elsewhere. One of 
the reasons that the Senator from California can describe this bill as 
a gerrymander, one of the reasons that she can call for delay is 
because the proponents of the division have acceded to the requests of 
the Senators from the various States that are affected by this 
division.

  Should we have another study commission? That study commission, if it 
is remotely objective, will recommend the division of the ninth circuit 
not into two, but into three new circuits, a proposition that this 
Senator feels to be highly appropriate. The only way to create three 
new circuits out of the present ninth circuit is to divide the State of 
California and to place it into two circuits: one centered in San 
Francisco, the other centered in Los Angeles.
  That recommendation has been with us for many years. That 
recommendation was incorporated into the first version of this bill. 
The two Senators from California are vehemently opposed to that 
recommendation, and I strongly suspect that if we go 2 years and have 
another study commission and it comes up with dividing California, they 
will find a reason to object to it again and to filibuster the 
proposal.
  So what did the sponsors of the division do? The sponsors of the 
division said, ``Fine, we will accede to the wishes of the Senators 
from California. We will make this a two-new-circuit bill.'' California 
will be left united.
  The Senators from Nevada, with some real justice with respect to the 
bill reported by the Judiciary Committee 2 years ago, stated that they 
didn't like the division; that Nevada felt more drawn to California 
than it did to the Pacific Northwest and Arizona. And so in this bill, 
we have acceded to the wishes of the Senators from Nevada and have left 
that State in the ninth circuit with the State of California.
  That is the reason that the circuit, as it appears in the bill, is 
not contiguous. But in the days of the Internet, of e-mail, of faxes, 
of air transportation, there is nothing but history to require that 
circuits be made up of contiguous States. And, of course, Alaska and 
Hawaii have never been contiguous to the States in the ninth circuit. 
Nor has Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to the circuits to which 
they are attached.
  Finally, the State of Hawaii, through its Senators, when it was 
determined there was to be a bill, elected, to my delight, Mr. 
President, that it would rather be in the smaller, the more intimate, 
the more collegial circuit, the new twelfth, and that appears in the 
bill. Then when we asked the representatives of Guam and the trust 
territories of the Pacific, they said, while they really don't want to 
change that, of course, they prefer to stay with Hawaii.
  If the great majority of the Senators from the Northwest and from 
Arizona wish a new circuit that is so logical, and if they have 
deferred to the wishes of the Senators from Colorado and Nevada as to 
their desires, why should we say no on the floor of the Senate to those 
who wish the division? What business is it of the Governor of 
California to tell us how the ninth circuit should be constituted? I am 
deeply troubled that Senators whose own wishes, reflecting what they 
think is best for their States, have been respected, refuse so 
arbitrarily as they and their predecessors have for more than two 
decades to accede to ours.
  Mr. President, there are 28 positions authorized for the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. There are 10 more requested by those judges 
and approved by the Judicial Council. That is a collegial circuit? At 
the number 28, three-judge panels that are chosen by lot have 3,276 
possible combinations of those three judges. You, Mr. President, one of 
the youngest of our Members, could be appointed to the ninth circuit, 
could serve on it for 30 years, and the chances are you would never 
serve on the same panel of three twice in that entire period of time. 
That is collegiality?
  The ninth circuit is slow from the time appeals are filed until they 
are decided. It is notoriously reversed more frequently than in the 
case of any other circuit. When I was attorney general of the State of 
Washington, we figured that if we could get the Supreme Court of the 
United States to take certiorari from the ninth circuit, we had at 
least a 75-percent chance of winning in the U.S. Supreme Court, of 
causing it to repeal the circuit.
  At one level, that is not a totally relevant argument, because the 
two new

[[Page S8045]]

circuits would start with exactly the same judges they have now, and I 
can't note any difference in philosophy from those who come from the 
States in the old ninth circuit under this proposal and the new twelfth 
circuit, and, of course, they are nominated by the same Presidents and 
confirmed by the same Members of the U.S. Senate. But I suspect that if 
the judges who work together knew one another a little bit better than 
they do now, there would at least be a marginal improvement in the 
number of times during which they are reversed.
  Mr. President, there is simply no justification whatsoever for the 
maintenance of this huge and unwieldy circuit. The Senator from 
California said in 20 years, California itself will have 50 million 
people. We have a wonderful First Circuit Court of Appeals, much 
smaller than the twelfth we propose in this legislation. New York and 
Pennsylvania, that don't have the population of California combined, 
have always been in separate circuits, and they are both on the 
Atlantic Ocean, and they both have to deal with the same kind of 
admiralty law.
  No, Mr. President. The time has come. There have been hearings 
galore. Those hearings have occupied a quarter of a century. There have 
been bills reported. Another study, another delay, only to be followed 
by another attempt to delay after that when a three-circuit division is 
proposed.
  No, Mr. President. The time is now. The division is appropriate. It 
will not be the last in the history of the U.S. courts. But it seems to 
me we should go ahead. From a personal point of view, I am somewhat 
unhappy that while we have done all we can to accommodate California, 
California refuses to accommodate us.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time is remaining on our side, Mr. 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-eight minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of the time to the ranking member 
of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been on the Appropriations Committee 
for 20-some odd years, on the Judiciary Committee about the same amount 
of time, and I understand that periodically, out of necessity, we have 
some items of legislation on the appropriations. But this is about as 
amazing a step as we could take to determine the fate of the ninth 
circuit on an appropriations bill.
  It is not the way to do it. We say we are going to split the Nation's 
largest court of appeals on this appropriations bill. We have had no 
hearings, no testimony, no public deliberations on the proposed split 
before us.
  Well, the 45 million people that live in these nine Western States 
deserve a more considered approach. What we ought to do is have the 
Senate Judiciary Committee hold hearings, conduct an independent study 
to determine whether this or any other proposed circuit division is 
necessary, find out what is the best way to do it, and not just do it 
basically based on one vote with very little debate in a committee, 
then on the floor in an appropriations bill.
  Last year, the Senate unanimously passed a bill to create a 
bipartisan commission to study if and how the ninth circuit should be 
restructured. And that is what the House has done this year. The 
amendment of the distinguished Senator from California [Mrs. 
Feinstein], is the same language as H.R. 908, the House-passed bill.
  What the Senator from California has done is a principled approach. 
It is also the approach supported by the majority of the judges and 
lawyers in the areas served.
  Are there problems in the ninth circuit? Of course there are. Let me 
point out to you, it is a problem not caused by the circuit, but by the 
U.S. Senate; 9 of the 28 judgeships in the ninth circuit are vacant. 
There are nominees up here before the Senate.
  As a result, the national average is 315 days to get a decision, but 
for the ninth circuit, it is 429 days. We have people in the ninth 
circuit who pay taxes like everybody else but who have to wait an extra 
114 days. In fact, the ninth circuit canceled 600 hearings this year 
because we cannot get judges confirmed to sit there.
  And what does that mean? It means that a multimillion-dollar 
settlement of a nationwide consumer class action against a maker of 
alleged defective minivans is not heard; a $71.7 million antitrust case 
involving the monopolizing of photocopy markets is not there; an 
arsenic and lead poisoning class action case with a $68 million 
settlement agreement is not being heard.
  What is happening, Mr. President, is that we go on and try to do 
little quick fixes because somebody wants to at the moment on an 
appropriations bill.
  What we ought to do, if we want to really do something to help 
justice in this country, is for the leadership of the Senate, that is, 
those who schedule debate, in this case, the majority leader, to take 
some of these judges and allow us to confirm them.
  The distinguished senior Senator from Utah, the chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, is on the floor. He has been working hard 
to get judges heard. But no matter how many we hear in the Judiciary 
Committee, unless they are confirmed on the floor of the Senate, it 
does not do any good.
  At this point, incidentally, we have confirmed--and we are down to 
the seventh month of this session--we have confirmed six judges. We are 
about to take another vacation. No more judges will be confirmed. That 
is less than one a month.
  There are over 100 vacancies. We have about 40 or so nominees up here 
waiting to be confirmed. We cannot even get them confirmed. Here is 
one, William Fletcher, nominated in 1995; still waiting. Richard Paez, 
the first month of 1996; still waiting. Margaret McKeown, March 1996; 
still waiting. This goes on and on and on.
  Here is what we have in vacancies--102 vacancies. This Senate has 
confirmed six.
  We all give speeches of needing judicial reform and needing law and 
order. You have a whole lot of courts where, because the U.S. Senate, 
because the leadership of the U.S. Senate will not let us confirm 
judges, we have courts where prosecutors have to kick cases out, that 
they have to plea bargain and everything else because there are not 
enough judges to hear them.
  Now, when you have proponents of the split of the ninth circuit say 
it is because justice is being denied, the reason justice is being 
denied is not geography; the real reason justice is being denied is 
because judges are being delayed.
  These are four well-qualified in the ninth circuit, four well-
qualified people. In fact, they have the highest ratings there are. One 
nominee has actually been favorably reported by the Judiciary 
Committee, but no--no--action here.
  What is happening, Mr. President, is not something that is going to 
get fixed by the Judiciary Committee, but is going to get fixed if the 
U.S. Senate does the duty it is supposed to. If we have judges here 
people do not like, vote them down. We held up the Deputy Attorney 
General of the United States, Eric Holder, week after week. ``Oh, we've 
got Senators, we cannot tell you their names, of course, but we have 
Senators who have real problems, real problems with this man. We can't 
bring him to a vote. We've got real problems.''
  We brought it to a vote. I asked for a rollcall vote. I thought, 
well, at least let all those Senators, unnamed Senators, who had an 
excuse for holding the No. 2 law enforcement officer of this country--I 
said, now we will know who they are, because, obviously, they have 
problems that they would hold up this man all these months, so they 
will vote against him. And the clerk called the roll.
  And do you know what it was? You know how many voted against him? You 
say, maybe 30? Probably 20, 10, I ask my good friend, the ranking 
member? You know how many it was?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. How many?
  Mr. LEAHY. Zero. I cannot quite say it--I cannot quite say it like my 
good friend from South Carolina. He is the only person I know who can 
get five syllables in the word ``zero,'' but zero. It was 100 to 
nothing; 100 to nothing.
  But what we have is, while the Judicial Conference, Chief Justice 
Rehnquist was asking for more justices, we have 27 vacancies in the 
court of appeals. We have all kinds of problems. And the ninth circuit 
is not

[[Page S8046]]

going to be helped by politicizing it on an appropriations bill.
  The ninth circuit can at least be helped by doing what the Senator 
from California said, have a nonpartisan professional panel look, make 
a recommendation, go to the Senate Judiciary Committee, vote it up or 
down, which is exactly what we should be doing on these judges. If we 
do not want them, vote them down.
  But what we have is always some mysterious person who has a problem. 
But when we have to vote in the light of day, there is no mysterious 
person at all because they vote for them. So, Mr. President, I know 
there are others who wish to speak.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in 
the Record addressed to Majority Leader Lott from all the leaders of 
seven national legal groups, asking him to finally move these judges 
that are being held hostage.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     American Bar Association,

                                                    July 14, 1997.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The President, The White House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     The Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President and Mr. Majority Leader: Among the 
     constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the President 
     and the Senate, none is more essential to the foundation upon 
     which our democracy rests than the appointment of justices 
     and judges to serve at all levels of the federal bench. 
     Notwithstanding the intensely political nature of the 
     process, historically this critical duty has been carried out 
     with bipartisan cooperation to ensure a highly qualified and 
     effective federal judiciary.
       There is a looming crisis in the Nation brought on by the 
     extraordinary number of vacant federal judicial positions and 
     the resulting problems that are associated with delayed 
     judicial appointments. There are 102 pending judicial 
     vacancies, or 11% of the number of authorized judicial 
     positions. A record 24 of these Article III positions have 
     been vacant for more than 18 months. Those courts hardest hit 
     are among the nation's busiest; for example, the Ninth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals has 9 of its 28 positions vacant. At 
     the district court level, six states have unusually high 
     vacancy rates: 10 in California, 8 in Pennsylvania, 6 in New 
     York, 5 in Illinois, and 4 each in Texas and Louisiana.
       The injustice of this situation for all of society cannot 
     be overstated. Dangerously crowded dockets, suspended civil 
     case dockets, burgeoning criminal caseloads, overburdened 
     judges, and chronically undermanned courts undermine our 
     democracy and respect for the supremacy of law.
       We, the undersigned representatives of national legal 
     organizations, call upon the President and the Senate to 
     devote the time and resources necessary to expedite the 
     selection and confirmation process for federal judicial 
     nominees. We respectfully urge all participants in the 
     process to move quickly to resolve the issues that have 
     resulted in these numerous and longstanding vacancies in 
     order to preserve the integrity of our justice system.

         N. Lee Cooper, President, American Bar Association; U. 
           Lawrence Boze, President, National Bar Association; 
           Hugo Chavaino, President, Hispanic National Bar 
           Association; Paul Chan, President, National Asian 
           Pacific American Bar Association; Howard Twiggs, 
           President, Association of Trial Lawyers of America; 
           Sally Lee Foley, President, National Association of 
           Women Lawyers; Juliet Gee, President, National 
           Conference of Women's Bar Association.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let us also not add to the partisanship we 
have had with stopping judges from being confirmed by now showing even 
more of a capricious nature on the part of the U.S. Senate by splitting 
the ninth circuit with no hearings, no debate, no thoughtful 
consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I just mention briefly there have been 
considerable hearings on this issue, testimony before our committee on 
this issue, and the matter has been around and been discussed at length 
in a variety of forums.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy-seven minutes and eighteen seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from California has?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-nine minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. We have 77 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield, in sequence, 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah 
and 20 minutes to the Senator from Montana, if that is acceptable.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
appropriations provision effecting a split of the Ninth U.S. Circuit 
Court of Appeals, and to respectively oppose the amendment offered by 
my colleague from California. Splitting the ninth circuit is 
appropriate at this time for three principal reasons: First, its size. 
The ninth circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits. Indeed, 
the ninth circuit is larger than the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th 
and 11th circuits combined. The population of the States comprising the 
ninth circuit is 49,358,941, almost one-fifth of the Nation's 
population. The size of the circuit also has an effect on the caseloads 
of the judges of the circuit. The ninth circuit's caseload in recent 
years has been in excess of 7,000 cases a year, far and away more than 
in any other circuit.
  The second reason to support this proposal is a function of the 
first. The ninth circuit's size also negatively impacts the internal 
consistency of law within the circuit. There are currently 28 seats on 
the ninth circuit, and many who are claiming that Congress should 
significantly add to that number at least 10 more seats--so, 38 seats. 
A circuit comprised of so many judges is entirely unmanageable and 
undermines important considerations of judicial economy, efficiency and 
collegiality. Because the circuit is so large its judges cannot sit 
together to hear cases en banc as do other circuits, and accordingly 
the court has lost the necessary sense of judicial collegiality, and 
coherence of its circuit-wide case law. I would venture that there are 
as many contradictory rules of law within the ninth circuit as there 
are within all the other circuits combined. This has, I believe, 
contributed to a trend by which some ninth circuit judges feel totally 
free to disregard precedent, be it circuit precedent or even the 
Supreme Court's rulings. Just this past term, the ninth circuit had an 
astounding reversal rate of 95 percent before the Supreme Court. 
Twenty-eight of 29 cases were reversed. And the usual rate is no less 
than 75 percent of their cases are reversed. One ninth circuit judge 
has expressed chagrin at this regrettable situation, explaining that 
``the circuit is too large and has too many cases--making it impossible 
to keep abreast of ninth circuit decisions.''
  The third cost of having such a large circuit is the resulting delay 
in having cases decided. The ninth circuit is, in fact, one of the 
slowest in turning around case decisions from the time of filing. And, 
because of its size, some cases, especially high-profile ones, appear 
to be subject to manipulation.
  These important considerations have persuaded me that the ninth 
circuit should be split. And, I am happy to report that I believe some 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, from States within the 
ninth circuit, will vote against the present amendment, and support the 
split provided for in the present bill.
  And finally, I would like to say a word about the way in which this 
proposed split has come to the floor. Some argue that a significant 
development like splitting a judicial circuit should not arise in the 
context of an appropriations bill--that the committee of jurisdiction, 
in this case the Judiciary Committee, should have the opportunity to 
review and comment about this proposal. I could not agree more with the 
proposition that this is a serious matter, deserving serious 
consideration. I point out, however, that the Judiciary Committee has 
indeed examined the advisability of splitting the ninth circuit. In 
just the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the 
subject, hearing from judges of the circuit and others knowledgeable 
about the implications of a split. After that hearing, the committee 
reported out a bill that, in many regards, is similar to the one before 
the Senate today.
  Accordingly, I am confident that the Senate has before it today a 
well-considered and desperately needed proposal to divide the ninth 
circuit. This is a proposal that serves the interests of judicial 
efficiency, stable case law,

[[Page S8047]]

and equal justice for Americans within the ninth circuit.
  With all due respect, therefore, I must take exception to the 
proposed commission my colleague from California is now offering by way 
of an amendment. I think the time for a split of the ninth circuit is 
now. I believe we have studied the matter thoroughly, and that there is 
no need for further hearings or a commission.
  Frankly, I would expect that, were we in fact to proceed with another 
commission, it would simply make a recommendation similar to the Hruska 
report of nearly 25 years ago--namely, to divide the State of 
California. I don't have any doubt in my mind that that is what a 
future commission will decide, because if you want to get population 
equality, you are going to have to divide California. This does not do 
that, in deference to the Governor of California and, I might add, the 
two Senators from California, and to the various Congresspeople from 
California. And I might add, should this amendment succeed--the 
amendment of the distinguished Senator from California--and a 
commission be created that ultimately recommends splitting California, 
I may well be compelled, as will others in this body, to support that 
split and finally put this matter to rest. So this is dangerous stuff 
to be playing around with because I believe that there will be a split 
of California if you go the commission route.
  Now, while I recognize that many are greatly concerned about the 
prospect of dividing the State of California, I have to tell everybody 
today that this is pretty certain to result if this amendment is 
enacted.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment offered by my 
colleague from California. I believe, in the best interests of all 
concerned, this is an adequate and reasonable response. And, frankly, 
we have given States within the total area to be divided their right to 
choose which circuit they will belong to. I think that is an 
appropriate, reasonable, decent way to proceed. Otherwise, we are just 
delaying this another 2, 3 years, and we will come up with another 
split of California, which will be vigorously fought against by Members 
of the California delegation in both the House and Senate, and we will 
wind up right back where we are, or California will be split. If it is 
split, I think it would be to the disadvantage of California, as I view 
it.
  I hope our colleagues will vote down this amendment, as well-
intentioned as it is, and will vote for this split, because it would be 
a split that would, I think, bring about collegiality, and it will 
bring about a better functioning two circuits, and it will give the 
States who want the split a chance to have their own circuit, where 
they can work together in the best interests of their States.
  If California continues to be the most reversible set of judges in 
the Nation, then they will have to live with that. Then everybody will 
know exactly who are the people that are doing this, who are the 
judicial activists, the ones undermining the judicial system, and are 
really causing California the pain, struggles, and difficulties that 
come from an out-of-control, judicially activist Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I do not see the Senator from Nevada 
at the moment. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 48 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington 
[Mrs. Murray].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Feinstein 
amendment. We simply should not--must not--divide the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals on an appropriations bill. It is an irresponsible way 
to proceed with such a fundamentally important question about how we 
best administer justice in the West.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this body, the Senate, in the 
104th Congress twice approved a study commission bill. In June, the 
House of Representatives sent us a bill, H.R. 908, establishing a 
similar commission. That bill is waiting at the desk for our action. 
House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde has voiced his dismay at this end 
run around his authorizing committee. Tuesday he wrote to Chairman 
Hatch, saying: ``As you well know, altering the structure of the 
Federal judicial system is a serious matter. It is something that 
Congress does rarely, and only after careful consideration.''
  Mr. President, I am not necessarily opposed to a split of the ninth 
circuit, but I am adamantly opposed to an appropriation's rider 
mandating such a gerrymandered split. As Chairman Hyde suggested, we 
need judicial experts thoroughly analyzing the courts and advising us 
on what makes sense from a national perspective.
  With so many of those who work directly in the ninth circuit opposed 
to this split, it seems clear we need guidance before we act. The White 
House opposes this split, the majority of judges on the ninth circuit 
oppose this split, and the majority of bar associations of the affected 
States oppose this split. Simply put, this is not the right way to 
proceed.
  We need answers to some important questions first. How much will this 
cost? Should we create a virtual one-state court? Should Arizona become 
a part of the tenth circuit? Where should we place a new circuit's 
courthouse? How many judges should serve in each circuit and from which 
States should they come? Should we break the ninth circuit into three 
circuits? How will our Pacific maritime law be affected? Before I 
participate in breaking up an institution that is more than 100 years 
old, I want those--and many more questions--answered.
  Mr. President, I also have another concern. I find it interesting 
that supporters of this rider so often refer to the pace at which the 
ninth circuit does its business. Yet, these same Senators have done 
little or nothing to fill the many vacancies plaguing the ninth 
circuit. An outstanding member of the Washington State legal community, 
Margaret McKeown, has been languishing for nearly 2 years in this body. 
She has yet to receive a hearing. This is unconscionable and this has 
real impact on the administration of justice. To make the ninth 
circuit--or any circuit--work, we must have judges. Let's get the 
confirmation process moving, and that will stop the glacial pace that 
people are concerned about.
  Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that we have passed almost 
every fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill without contentious riders. 
We should have learned from the disaster relief bill what can happen 
when these riders dominate the process. I believe we should maintain 
the bipartisan approach we've used so far and avoid letting this 
important bill get bogged down with riders.
  Let's do our appropriations job right and let's do the very serious 
job of reconfiguring the judiciary right. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Feinstein amendment establishing a commission to guide the 
Congress on how best to resolve any real or perceived difficulties in 
the administration of justice in the ninth circuit.
  I yield my time back to the Senator from California.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment that would 
strike the provision from the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations 
bill to divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We have heard so 
much said today about how the bar associations oppose it, the judges 
oppose it, and nobody has said anything about the people. Are they 
secondary in our justice system? We are supposed to be serving the 
people, and I think the bar associations do, too. I happen to believe 
that they believe very strongly in the kind of service that they 
deliver to their clientele. But we haven't heard that today.
  If there were a judicial equivalent of baseball's famous ``Mendoza 
line,'' marking the mediocre batting average of .200 below which 
players dread dropping, then the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
would be laboring in the farm leagues.
  In terms of the rate at which its decisions are reversed by the U.S. 
Supreme Court, the ninth circuit's record for failure is practically 
unblemished. In recent years, on average, more than 80 percent of 
rulings by the ninth have

[[Page S8048]]

been overturned. This past term, the Supreme Court reviewed 29 cases 
from the ninth circuit--it reversed, in part or in whole, an 
astonishing 28 of them.
  The ninth circuit in 1996-97 alone was reversed, often 9 to 0, on 
decisions asserting the right to die, requiring sheriffs to conduct 
federally required but unfunded background checks on people who buy 
guns, and denying the right of groups who were economically harmed by 
the Endangered Species Act to sue even though the law gives legal 
standing to any person.
  While the high court undoubtedly chooses many cases with the express 
intent of reversing them, the ninth circuit this past year has wrecked 
the curve. For instance, the eighth circuit, which had the second-most 
cases reviewed, had a reversal-and-affirmance record of only 4 to 4.
  But ``this isn't baseball,'' says Judge Stephen S. Trott of Boise, 
ID, according to a recent Los Angeles Times article.
  Agreed. The jurisprudence of our Federal appellate court system is 
far more serious than a game. In my view, the fact that the ninth 
circuit is undeniably out of step with the rest of the Nation is 
perhaps the least of the multitude of reasons to consider splitting 
this giant court.

  First, the ninth circuit outstrips the other circuits in all measures 
of size, both physically and legally. The ninth circuit encompasses a 
land mass the size of Western Europe. Its nine States and two 
territories--Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 
Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands--
stretch from the Arctic Circle south to the United States-Mexico border 
and west across the international dateline. It has a population of 
nearly 50 million people, about 1 in 5 Americans, and is expected to 
grow by 43 percent over just the next 13 years.
  Second, the ninth's caseload is the largest. More than 8,500 appeals 
were filed last year, and that number is expected to jump by nearly 700 
percent in the next 25 years, making the ninth less than a model of 
fair and speedy justice. In fact, of the 11 regional circuits and the 
District of Columbia circuit, it ranks next-to-worst in the duration of 
pending appeals--an average of 429 days, usually more for criminal 
cases, compared to the national average of 315 days.
  These delays are costly. Appeals take time and money, and they're 
putting the squeeze on my State. Litigants and attorneys who must make 
frequent and expensive trips to San Francisco are pleading for reform.
  Third, the problems of geography and population are two factors that 
contribute to judicial inconsistency on the ninth. Because the 28 
judgeships of the ninth--nearly twice the maximum number recommended by 
the U.S. Judicial Conference--are scattered so far and wide, the court 
has experimented with limited en banc proceedings in which a panel of 
11 judges decides the most important cases. By relaying on this 
approach, conflicting court decisions are common. The right hand 
doesn't know what the left hand is doing. As a result, decisions by the 
ninth are often narrow and set few precedents for use by judges in 
other cases.
  In fact, several of the Supreme Court Justices criticized the Ninth 
Circuit's en banc decision in Washington versus Glucksberg that the due 
process clause of the 14th amendment guarantees critically ill 
individuals a limited right to assisted suicide. Even some liberal 
members of the Court, such as Justice Ginsburg, expressed concern that 
the Ninth Circuit opinion seemed to give Federal courts a ``dangerous 
power.''
  Size was a factor leading a congressional commission in 1973 to urge 
splitting the fifth and ninth circuits. Congress chose to split the 
fifth, while the ninth has become bogged down in political squabbles 
and has had to make due with its enormous size.
  One cannot make the argument this has not been heard, or that it has 
not been studied when in actuality it has.
  Some press accounts have portrayed the debate as a clash of party 
ideologies, of conservatives who favor the split versus liberals who do 
not. But such a view is short-sighted. These press accounts overlook 
the bipartisan support behind dividing the ninth. For many of us, it is 
just as simple as wanting a court that is closer in every sense to the 
people it serves.
  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has publicly noted the merit of 
division. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently said ``the sheer 
size of the Ninth Circuit, even without its attendant management 
difficulties, argues for its division.'' Montana Governor Marc Racicot, 
a former State attorney general, favors the idea. And I would now like 
to submit a letter from Governor Racicot supporting this split.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                             State of Montana,

                                        Helena, MT, July 22, 1997.
     Senator Conrad Burns,
     U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Burns: I would like to submit this letter in 
     support of an amendment to the appropriations bill for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1998. The amendment would divide the Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals and create a Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals made up 
     of the states of Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 
     Oregon, and Washington. As you know, I have been supportive 
     of this effort for a long time and I continue to support the 
     proposal for the reasons stated below.
       The Ninth Circuit, of which Montana is currently a part, is 
     simply too large to effectively respond to the needs of those 
     it serves. That Court has 28 judges making decisions for 9 
     states and 2 territories, with a population of between 40 and 
     50 million people in an area that encompasses about fourteen 
     million square miles. The next largest circuit has a 
     population of under 30 million. California cases alone 
     represent over half of the Ninth Circuit's caseload and the 
     number of judges exceeds by twelve the next largest appellate 
     court, the Fifth Circuit, and is sixteen more than the 
     average appellate bench. I cannot imagine anyone making a 
     compelling argument that a judicial unit of government this 
     size can be administratively efficient.
       As you know, our system of jurisprudence relies upon the 
     principle of ``stare decisis'' or precedent. With a circuit 
     and court so large, most cases must be heard by smaller 
     panels of judges, with increased reliance upon staff and 
     summary procedures. With 28 judges, there are over 3,276 
     combinations of panels that may decide cases that involve 
     similar issues. This leads to conflicting and unpublished 
     opinions, reduced communications among judges and little 
     consistency in the court's determinations. The lack of 
     consistency in a court's decisions, in turn, makes our system 
     of justice unpredictable and unreliable. As a result, the 
     body of established precedent in the circuit can be rendered 
     meaningless. There is, in essence, a diminution of precedent, 
     which undermines the stability and predictability of the law, 
     and actually leads to increased litigation.
       I have questioned whether the operational costs of such a 
     large system are comparatively higher. Travel expenses and 
     efficiency of judges and staff should be examined to 
     determine if significant efficiencies could be produced in a 
     smaller circuit. It is not true that a new circuit would 
     result in attorneys traveling to the same cities for argument 
     as before. Montana attorneys often are ordered to San 
     Francisco for argument.
       The size of the Ninth Circuit also seems to bear upon the 
     length of time it takes to make decisions. The median time to 
     dispose of a case--from the time of filing a notice of appeal 
     to the final decision on the merits--is 14.6 months. 
     Arguments will be made that much of this time is consumed by 
     counsel rather than the Court; however, I can recall as 
     Montana's Attorney General waiting a long time for the Court 
     to decide cases for which the record had been submitted 
     months or years before.
       Habeas corpus matters have taken up to 14 years in one 
     Montana case. It appears that the legitimate interest of the 
     public in reaching final resolution in these cases is not 
     given equal and appropriate consideration when balancing the 
     rights of petitioners. The resulting delays invite the kinds 
     of ``recreational'' use of the court system by inmates that 
     we have seen in recent years.
       Opponents of splitting the Ninth Circuit argue that the 
     larger the circuit the more consistency in federal law and 
     mention that judges and attorneys have testified to a sense 
     of community which they enjoy with the existing appellate 
     courts. As I noted in the beginning of my letter, the size of 
     the Ninth Circuit bench has led to decision-making by panel, 
     the differing combinations of which leads inescapably to a 
     lack of consistency in precedential authority. And to argue 
     that judges and attorneys are comfortable with the status quo 
     is a position that, with all due respect, I would imagine 
     falls deaf on the ears of those who have been awaiting a 
     decision from the Court for many months or years.
       I do not take the position that Montanans can only find 
     justice before a bench made up of Montana judges or judges 
     from neighboring states. And I am not moved to my position by 
     the political arguments of interest groups whose position on 
     S. 956 is based upon

[[Page S8049]]

     whether they wish their particular body of substantive law to 
     change or remain the same. However, I do not believe that the 
     original intent of the appellate court system, which was to 
     establish circuits which reflected a regional identity by 
     designating a manageable set of contiguous states that shared 
     a common background, is consistent with a circuit that serves 
     twenty million more people than most of the other circuits 
     and covers fourteen million square miles.
       Suggestions to divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
     have apparently been proposed since before World War II. The 
     Hruska Commission (Commission on Revision of the Federal 
     Court Appellate System) in 1973 recommended dividing the 
     Fifth and the Ninth Circuits (the Fifth was subsequently 
     divided, but not the Ninth). Opponents of dividing circuits 
     recommend a variety of alternatives: consolidation of all 
     circuits into one large national court, dividing California 
     into two different circuits, and finally the familiar 
     solution of studying the problem further. I hope Congress 
     does not delay further correcting a situation that penalizes 
     those states in the Ninth Circuit for the incredible 
     population growth that has occurred in California and is 
     occurring in Nevada.
       I strongly support the proposed amendment, because I think 
     it will solve some of the problems mentioned above and end 
     many of the frustrations we feel with the Ninth Circuit Court 
     of Appeals. If I can be of further assistance in your effort 
     to pass this proposal, please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Marc Racicot,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to read one part of the 
Governor's letter. He states ``the Ninth Circuit is simply too large to 
effectively respond to the needs of those it serves.'' State 
legislatures of the Northwest consistently and overwhelmingly call on 
Congress to split the ninth circuit.
  On the other hand, the bill is opposed by judges and lawyers in the 
ninth circuit who would lose control over their fiefdoms. It is also 
opposed by special-interest groups that apparently care little about 
the troubles that are caused by the ninth circuit.
  Mr. President, as you may know, since I came to the Senate in 1989, I 
have sponsored numerous bills and amendments that would achieve a split 
of the ninth circuit and I commend the Commerce, State Justice, 
Subcommittee on their willingness to again take up the fight in the 
105th Congress. It's an old axiom that justice delayed is justice 
denied. For too long the people of the ninth circuit have been caught 
in the cogs of the wheels of justice. I want to put a stop to this 
inequity by dividing this court before its growth overwhelms us all.
  Mr. President, in looking at what has been said by some, that it has 
not been heard, that it has not been studied, let's just take a look 
and see what has been done since.
  In 1974, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on S. 729 to 
realign the fifth and ninth. It was reported out of committee. Nothing 
happened.
  On March 7, 1984, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts held hearings 
on S. 1156, the Ninth Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1983. No 
action was taken.
  On March 6, 1990, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and 
Administrative Practices held hearings on S. 948, the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1989. And there was no action 
taken.
  In 1990, the Intellectual Property and Administration of Justice 
Committee held hearings on H.R. 4900, the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals Reorganization Act of 1990. Still no action was taken.
  H.R. 3654 died in committee without hearings.
  In 1995, the full Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on S. 956, 
the Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1995. An amended version 
passed the Senate by voice vote, but it died in the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  So it is not that this has not been looked at and studied. It has 
always gotten bogged down.
  Basically that is what we are talking about here. We continue to talk 
about the bar association doesn't want it, the judges of the ninth 
don't want it. When do we start listening to the people who have to use 
it?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Bennett]. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if a litigant in the ninth circuit, which 
covers the areas that have already been spoken of, has a case heard 
before a Federal district judge or a bankruptcy court and they are 
displeased with how the case turns out, they have a right to appeal 
that case. Under the framework of the courts that we have now in this 
country, that is appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San 
Francisco.
  That is what we are talking about here today--what happens when a 
case is appealed from a lower Federal court to the ninth circuit, which 
is an intermediary step before it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. That 
is what we are talking about. It is extremely important if you are 
involved in the judicial process. There isn't a court that is more 
important than a circuit court, a Federal circuit court of appeals.
  We are very fortunate in the ninth circuit to have the chief judge of 
the ninth circuit, not only one of the distinguished jurists of this 
country but also a graduate of Stanford Law School with a great 
academic record, but, most important for this Senator, is a Nevadan, 
born in Nevada, went to school in Nevada until he got into law school. 
We didn't have a law school.
  I have spent a lot of time with Judge Hug learning about the ninth 
circuit. I would ask the Members of this body to reflect upon what the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee said. The ninth circuit is 
doing an excellent job. They are reducing caseload. In fact, even with 
nine vacancies, which the distinguished ranking member, the senior 
Senator from Vermont, established, the ninth circuit caseload is 
decreasing--not increasing, decreasing. They have increased their 
termination of cases by almost 1,000 from March 1996 to March 1997. 
They are doing a good job even though they are handicapped because the 
Senate won't confirm the vacancies that they now have.
  I, first of all, want to thank the distinguished Senator on the 
subcommittee, Senator Gregg, for taking into account my concerns about 
the split. I very much want this study to go forward, the amendment 
that is now before this body. But if it doesn't go forward, it is 
important that the State of Nevada recognize people--recognize, as the 
chairman of the subcommittee recognized, that the State of Nevada is 
now the most urban State in America. Ninety percent of the people live 
in the metropolitan areas of Reno and Las Vegas. We have tremendously 
difficult judicial problems. Frankly, the way the State has changed 
populationwise is we have a great deal in common with the more 
populated areas of America.
  We feel that it would be unfair to have the split any other way than 
it now is. There may be other and better ways to split this court. That 
is why this study is so important. That is why the U.S. Senate last 
year passed a study saying let's take a look at all the circuit courts 
before a decision is made as to how you are going to split the ninth 
circuit. We all have a feeling that the ninth circuit is large. It is 
larger than most all of the other circuits. But the fact of the matter 
is, how can we determine how it should be split under the terms that it 
is now being done; that is, before the Appropriations Committee? It is 
being done for reasons that are not legal in nature. They are political 
in nature.

  Judge Hug said, ``By adding a circuit-split provision as a rider to 
an appropriations bill, it would completely bypass the Judiciary 
Committee and would seek to impose a new judicial structure on nine 
Western States and the Pacific territories without appropriate 
hearings, public comment, or independent research subsequent of such 
action.''
  Let's, in effect, have the experts take a look at what we should do. 
The House passed a compromise very comparable to what we did last year. 
The House passed a bill that says let's have the Chief Justice, the 
President of the United States, and the minority and majority leaders 
of the House and Senate pick people to serve on this 10-member 
commission and to report back to us in 18 months as to what should be 
done.
  I think it would even be better, while all of this is going on, to 
fill the nine vacancies in the ninth circuit. People

[[Page S8050]]

are really concerned about the administration of justice. Let's have 
the majority move those people through this body as quickly as 
possible.
  The fifth circuit, the most recently split circuit, has only 1,000 
fewer cases than the ninth circuit, and the eleventh circuit, the other 
half of the most recently split circuit, is the slowest circuit for 
filing the disposition. It is not the ninth circuit, even though we are 
hamstrung and are short a significant number of judges. If you look at 
the eleventh circuit, which has 1,000 fewer cases than the ninth 
circuit, it takes them longer to dispose of a case than the ninth 
circuit.
  So the ninth circuit should be commended for the good work they are 
doing with the limited resources they have.
  Mr. President, there are some who say, ``Well, it is important that 
we do this because California takes up so much of the ninth circuit.''
  Another misstatement of fact: California doesn't do as much work in 
the ninth circuit as, for example, the second circuit. The second 
circuit, New York, has 86 percent of the filings; the ninth circuit, 
only has 55 percent. The fifth circuit takes up 72 percent of the 
filings; and the eleventh circuit, Florida, takes up 55 percent of the 
cases.
  So, Mr. President, California is not the glutton that people have 
alleged it to be. They don't take up as many of the case filings as 
other circuits.
  I would compare the qualifications of the ninth circuit judges--those 
appointed by Republican Presidents and those appointed by Democratic 
Presidents--with any other circuit. From the finest law schools in 
America are the judges who serve on the ninth circuit. Five of the 
senior judges in the ninth circuit were appointed by Republican 
Presidents; four by Democratic Presidents.
  There has been a lot of talk in this body about the Hruska 
Commission. The Hruska Commission said, in 1974, you should split the 
circuits. But let's listen to what the experts said about that. I have 
a letter here dated July 17, 1997, from Arthur Helman, Professor of Law 
at the University of Pittsburgh. I will read parts of this letter. This 
is written to the president of the California State Bar Association.

       Again, as the Deputy Executive Director of the Hruska 
     Commission, and as a scholar who has studied the ninth 
     circuit extensively during the intervening period, I am in as 
     good a position as anyone to shed light on this matter. My 
     conclusion is unequivocal. Such speculation is baseless.

  Mr. President, this isn't some lawyer from California or some 
professor from California or anyone in the ninth circuit. This is the 
professor in the School of Law at the University of Pittsburgh.

       My conclusion is unequivocal. Such speculation is baseless. 
     The circumstances that led to the Hruska Commission are no 
     longer present, and there is absolutely no reason to think 
     that a new commission would endorse such a proposal. Let me 
     be more specific. The Hruska Commission recommendation was 
     driven primarily by a single factor. The commission believes 
     that ``no circuit should be created which would immediately 
     require more than nine active judges.'' That was a realistic 
     possibility 25 years ago. Today it is not. In fact, of 
     existing circuits, all but one have more than nine active 
     judges. With the nine-judge circuit a relic of the past, a 
     new commission would have no reason to recommend a division 
     of California. A second consideration is also relevant. The 
     Hruska Commission held hearings in the ninth circuit, and, 
     although there was no consensus, several prominent California 
     judges expressed support for the idea of dividing California 
     between Federal judicial circuits.
       I know that sounds implausible, but that only underscores 
     how much things have changed since the Hruska Commission 
     carried out its work 25 years ago. Plainly, no such support 
     would be forthcoming today without a record such as the one 
     of the Hruska Commission and with overwhelming opposition 
     from the California bar, no commission would recommend a 
     division of California. For all these reasons the speculation 
     you referred to is totally without foundation. Whatever 
     recommendations the new commission might make, I am confident 
     that dividing California into circuits will not be among 
     them.

  Mr. President, in short, we should do the right thing. The right 
thing calls for having experts report back to us in a reasonable period 
of time. If they want to do it in a year, even though it would put a 
tremendous amount of work on them, I would accept that so that next 
year at this time we could take appropriate action. But to go forward 
the way we have done in the Appropriations Committee is bad. It is bad 
legislation and makes this body look bad, and it is bad legislation 
because it makes our judicial system look real bad. It has never ever 
happened before that we have divided a circuit court the way we are 
about to do it now. The lives of people depend on what we do today. 
Cases that are appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court come from these 
circuits. I suggest we follow the recommendation of the amendment that 
is now before this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding in 
opposition to the Feinstein amendment and hope that the Senate would 
concur with the findings of the committee. Commerce, State, Justice 
appropriations has dealt in what I believe is an appropriate way with 
the issue of the ninth circuit court. There should be no surprises. 
This is simply not a new issue. I have always felt, and I think many 
concur, that if you want to not resolve an issue, you create a 
commission and study something once again, and we know that this has 
been studied and recommendations have been made.
  In 1973, the Hruska Commission suggested that the ninth and the fifth 
circuits be split, and the fifth circuit was split, the ninth was not. 
There was simply too much political controversy around it. My guess is 
today it is a lot more about politics than it is about justice, justice 
to the citizens of our country who deserve a timely process in the 
courts, and certainly with the ninth circuit court being as large as it 
is, as other Senators have spoken to this afternoon, justice 
appropriately and timely rendered is the question.
  It has been mentioned--I believe the Senator from Montana mentioned 
that the ninth circuit averages 429 days and that the medium national 
time average is 315 days. When you are in the midst of a lawsuit, do 
you set it aside? Do you quit spending money? Do you stop the retainer 
of the attorneys representing you? I doubt it. And that clock ticks on 
and the money accumulates, and the cost is high and justice goes 
unrendered.
  Then the question in this very extended court is to whether the 
justice is appropriate. The Senator from Utah referenced the number of 
times the Supreme Court this year has overruled the ninth circuit. 
Those are all part of the issues that brought the citizens of Idaho to 
me and to my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, to suggest that it was time 
we dealt with this issue, that it had been since 1973 that the issue 
was found to be one of division, one of the appropriate allocation of 
States, money, and judges, and that simply has not occurred.
  I hope that we would deal with this.
  The bill before us today would put California, Nevada, Guam, and the 
Northern Marianas in the ninth circuit. It would also create a new 
twelfth circuit including Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, Oregon, and 
Washington. I am currently a cosponsor of Senator Murkoswki's bill, S. 
431, which splits the ninth circuit a little differently. However, I 
find the division in the Gregg-Stevens amendment to be very well though 
out and fair. I think either split of the ninth circuit would work much 
better than the current organization of the ninth circuit.
  The subject of dividing the ninth circuit split has been discussed 
now for many years. In fact, as long as 1973, the Hruska Commission 
suggested the ninth and fifth circuits should be split. Although the 
fifth circuit was divided, the ninth was not. Ever since then, the 
debate about splitting the ninth circuit has roared on.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I am perplexed why there is any question 
about this proposal. The ninth circuit is by the largest circuit in the 
United States. It currently employs 28 judges--11 more than any other 
circuit. The U.S. Judicial Conference has called any circuit with more 
than 15 judges unworkable. I guess that means, in the opinion of the 
Judicial Conference, we have an unworkable situation.
  The ninth circuit currently serves 45 million people. This is 60 
percent more than the next largest district. The Census Bureau has 
estimated that by 2010, the population in the ninth circuit will top 63 
million people, an increase of 40

[[Page S8051]]

percent. The situation has worsened since the Hruska Commission 
suggested a split of the ninth circuit--a trend certain to continue 
with further delay.
  Over the years of debate on this issue, there has been much 
discussion of inconsistency and unmanageable caseloads. I would like to 
change the focus of the argument for just a moment and instead look at 
the impact on the people of the ninth circuit, which includes the 
people of Idaho. The size of the ninth circuit also has quite an effect 
on these individuals.
  The ninth circuit averages 429 days from filing to concluding an 
appeal. This is much longer than the national median time of 315 days. 
This affects the individuals who resort to the judicial system to 
resolve a dispute in their lives. It's been said that people in this 
country want and expect swift, efficient justice and I think they 
deserve it.
  It is not fair for the people in the ninth circuit to be subjected to 
this inefficiency. People want their disputes to be solved quickly so 
they can go on with their lives. A lawsuit has the ability to consume 
everything else in one's life. In the ninth circuit, it consumes their 
lives for a longer period of time. Also, during this extended process, 
these individuals are forced to continue paying legal fees. Mr. 
President, I ask you if 100 extra days in litigation sounds like swift 
justice.
  The huge backlog that develops can lead to different sorts of 
problems in the Northwest. The economic stability of the Northwest is 
threatened when suits involving, for example, the timber industry are 
forced into the backlog of inefficiency.
  It is unquestioned that the ninth circuit covers a huge area. 
However, when that is combined with the 7,000 new filings the circuit 
had last year, it becomes almost impossible to keep abreast of legal 
developments in the circuit. The result is everchanging judicial 
patterns that inevitably make conflicting rulings. This leads to 
judicial inconsistency, which is not good for the system, or the people 
who seek relief through the system. This might help to explain the fact 
that the ninth circuit has an 82 percent rate of reversal by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. President, I ask you if this 
sounds like efficient justice.
  Opponents of this legislation argue that the extreme size and 
population of the ninth circuit is not enough of a reason to support a 
split. However, that was the exact reason for the split of the former 
eighth circuit, which created the tenth circuit. It was also the exact 
reason for dividing the fifth circuit and creating the eleventh 
circuit. In fact, as I said before, when the fifth circuit was split, 
it was suggested that the ninth circuit be split as well.
  Opponents also argue for the need of a new commission to determine 
the need for a split of the ninth circuit. Twenty-five years ago the 
suggestion of just such a commission was to split the ninth circuit. It 
has grown since then, and is continuing to grow. The proposed split has 
been discussed for many years now, including Senate Judiciary hearings. 
There is more than enough data currently in the record to make an 
informed decision, and that decision should be to split the ninth 
circuit.
  Mr. President, this situation has been a long time in coming. It is 
now time for us to act. The split of the fifth circuit worked 25 years 
ago, so there is no reason we should not expect similar success with 
the ninth circuit. It is time that we recognize the competing interests 
of the differing regions in the ninth circuit and split them up. I ask 
that my colleagues support the split of the ninth circuit in the 
interest of returning swift, efficient justice to the people of the 
ninth circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
California, my colleague, Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. I stand in favor 
of the pending Feinstein amendment calling for a study to decide 
whether the people would be better served by splitting the ninth 
circuit and, if so, how to split the ninth circuit.
  Mr. President, I am very fortunate at this time to be sitting on the 
Appropriations Committee, and I knew when I took a seat on that 
committee it was very powerful. Mr. President, I know you sit on that 
committee as well, and we are proud to be there. But, in my opinion, I 
never believed the Appropriations Committee would take it upon itself 
to determine how to split the ninth circuit. It seems to me if we are 
going to undertake this, it ought to be a study. The study ought to go 
to the Judiciary Committee, of which my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Feinstein, is a member. That is the proper way to serve the 
people we represent.
  Congress has redrawn circuit boundaries only twice since creating the 
modern appellate system in 1891. So only twice has Congress stepped in. 
Congress has never divided a circuit without the support of the circuit 
judges and the organized bar. The judges and lawyers of the ninth 
circuit overwhelmingly oppose the split without first studying it. The 
Federal Bar Association and the bar associations of California, 
Arizona, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, and Hawaii have all passed resolutions 
expressing their opposition to splitting the circuit. The Ninth Circuit 
Judicial Council, the governing body for all the courts in the ninth 
circuit, is unanimous in their opposition to splitting the circuit.
  The last time splitting up the ninth circuit was studied was during 
the Hruska Commission in 1973, and the principal authors of that 
report, Judge Charles Wiggins of Nevada and former Deputy Executive 
Director of the Hruska Commission, Professor Arthur Hellman, agree that 
its recommendation to split the ninth circuit is outdated and they 
oppose a split without first conducting a study. And that, of course, 
is what the pending amendment is about, to have a study first.
  Now, we hear many comments in this Chamber, and I heard them in 
committee, about the delay at the ninth circuit. Any delay in total 
case processing time is clearly due to unfilled vacancies. I have heard 
this over and over. There are 28 judicial seats on the ninth circuit. 
Of these 28, there are only 19 active judges. So clearly we have not 
done our job here, and it seems to me justice delayed is justice 
denied, and we better get busy.
  We have some excellent nominees pending before the Senate and before 
the Committee on the Judiciary. And I tell you, I have been quite 
frustrated that we cannot seem to get these nominations up before the 
body but yet we can seem to bring a split of the ninth circuit with all 
its ramifications here in lickety-split time without much study. I find 
it very, very ironic when we have the most qualified candidates who 
have been selected by Republicans and Democrats alike sitting and 
waiting here in excess of a year and a half, 2 years.
  We hear about the high reversal rate at the ninth circuit, and 
clearly there is a high reversal, if you look at it this way --28 of 29 
cases. However, the Supreme Court elects to hear only a tiny fraction 
of the more than 4,000 final dispositions issued annually by the 
circuit. So thousands of cases stand and then 28 of 29 that they chose 
to hear they reversed.
  But, Mr. President, it is interesting. Four other circuits have 
higher reversal rates than the ninth circuit. The first, second, 
seventh, and D.C. circuits are all reversed 100 percent of the time.
  We also hear that California judicial philosophy dominates the ninth 
circuit. Ten of the circuits' nineteen active judges actually sit 
outside California: Arizona, Nevada, and Idaho each have two judges; 
Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska each have one. And the circuit 
judges are evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Of the 
court's 19 active judges, Mr. President, 10 were nominated by 
Republican Presidents and 9 by Democratic Presidents. So many of the 
arguments that we hear today seem to me to be rather specious.
  Then we hear the argument that this is very cost efficient, but no 
one talks about costs of the splitting up of the ninth circuit, and 
those would be substantial. Creation of a new twelfth circuit would 
require duplicate offices of clerk of court, circuit executive, staff 
attorneys, settlement attorneys, libraries, courtrooms, and mail and 
computer facilities, at an annual cost of $1.3 million.

[[Page S8052]]

  Now, it may be that this money would be well spent. I certainly am 
very, very open to splitting this court. That is not a problem for me. 
The problem for me is how we go about it. Before we invest this money 
every year plus the $3 million startup costs, and an additional $2 
million for leasing space, it seems to me we ought to have a study.
  So I strongly support the Feinstein amendment. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of it. I hope that wisdom will prevail.
  I thank the Chair for its patience. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have a prepared statement, but 
I am going to divert from it and frankly just speak from my heart, from 
my experience. My experience is not long in this Chamber. But my 
experience among the people of Oregon is very recent. And my experience 
there with people causes me to rise in opposition to the amendment of 
the Senator from California. I am reluctant to do that for a personal 
reason. I am one of Senator Feinstein's great admirers. She may not 
know that, but I think she is a terrific human being. But I have an 
obligation to speak as best I can for the people who elected me.
  I believe this may be an imperfect process. Maybe it should not be a 
rider to a bill. But I am very aware that for 25 years this issue has 
been debated in this Chamber, and we have had study after study after 
study, and what we are beginning to develop is a feeling among the 
electorate that when going for justice in the ninth circuit, that 
justice will be denied. So I think there is a lot of frustration on the 
part of many of us here that we have to do whatever we can and stop 
studying and stop delaying and start doing. So I feel very strongly 
about this.
  I have heard many arguments today that have merit on a procedural 
basis. Yes, maybe many of the legal profession oppose this. But many 
people support this.
  We have heard charges of gerrymandering. I have a map of the United 
States and the circuit courts of this country. They are saying we are 
gerrymandering on the west coast of the United States, but I notice 
that nearly every State on the east coast of the United States is in a 
different circuit. There are five circuits that cover the Eastern 
United States, and those circuits have the lowest reversal rates, taken 
together, of any region in the country. I think we need to change it.
  So I rise to support what Senator Gregg is doing. I thank him for 
that. I thank him for his leadership. He doesn't have a dog in the 
fight of the ninth circuit, but a lot of us do. So I thank him for 
that.
  I join my colleagues in opposition to this amendment to strike the 
provision in this bill to divide the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals. This may not be the most perfect solution to a difficult 
problem, but I believe that it provides a platform from which to 
relieve the caseload and reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Serving more than 45 million people and spanning 1.4 million 
square miles, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handles more than 
8,500 filings a year--with a reversal rate of 96 percent. By the year 
2010, the ninth circuit population will increase in size by 43 percent.
  While my colleague from California may argue that this is an issue 
for further study, I would like to remind my colleagues that the Senate 
has studied this issue for almost a quarter century and has reported 
legislation to split the ninth circuit on three separate occasions. 
Clearly, the time has come to act.
  I want to conclude by reading the comments of some judges who support 
what is happening here, because some have been read to the reverse.
  Mr. President, we are not simply legislating without just cause. The 
judges that serve in the ninth circuit have given us cause to act 
without further delay. Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain from my state of 
Oregon has stated:

       We (the ninth circuit) cannot grow without limit. As the 
     number of opinions increases, we judges risk losing the 
     ability to know what our circuit's law is. In short, bigger 
     is not necessarily better. The ninth circuit will ultimately 
     need to be split.

  I replaced a great senator, Senator Mark O. Hatfield who served in 
this Chamber for 30 years. He said:

       The ninth circuit's size has created serious problems: too 
     many judges spending more time and money traveling than 
     hearing cases, a growing backlog of cases which threaten to 
     bury each judge, a dangerous inability to keep up with 
     current case law, a breakdown in judicial collegiality and, 
     most importantly, a failure to provide uniformity, stability 
     and predictability in the development of federal law 
     throughout the Western region. It is increasingly clear that 
     these problems cannot be solved by the reforms already 
     implemented by the Court. These arguments adequately state 
     the case for the division of the circuit. We delay at our 
     peril.

  Mr. President, justice delayed is justice denied. I ask my colleagues 
to join me in opposing this amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 46 
minutes. The Senator from California controls 27 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator from California mind if we take another 
speaker?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Not at all.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Idaho for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, may I commend the Senator from New 
Hampshire for his efforts on this issue. I applaud him on that. It is 
long overdue. Therefore, I must rise in opposition to the Senator from 
California, for whom I have the utmost respect. She and I happen to 
have served as mayors in this country at the same time. I prefer it 
when we are on the same side of an issue. I look forward to that day 
again.
  The time to alleviate the problems being faced by the ninth circuit 
has long been passed. It is time for us to deal with this. The proposal 
to realign the ninth circuit was first considered by the Senate nearly 
25 years ago. For 25 years we have known that we should be at this 
point, that we should have made the decision long ago. Yet, the option 
presented by this amendment would only serve to further delay this long 
overdue realignment. And further delay serves only to deny access to 
justice to the people who fall under the jurisdiction of the ninth 
circuit.
  The immense size of the ninth circuit is one of the problems. The 
next closest circuit in size is the sixth. The sixth circuit has a 
population of just under 30 million people. The ninth circuit has 
nearly 50 million people--70 percent more people than does the sixth. 
And the problem will only get worse because, over the next 12 years, 
the States which make up the current ninth circuit are expected to grow 
by 43 percent.
  So here we have a problem that is 25 years in the making and getting 
worse, and now we can see the projections that it is just simply going 
to be driven to the point that access to justice is absolutely 
impossible. As a result of the tremendous caseloads, adjudication by 
the ninth circuit is unnecessarily and unfortunately slow. Recent 
figures indicate the time to complete an appeal in the ninth circuit is 
40 percent longer than the national median.
  The people of the ninth circuit are simply not served by the unneeded 
delay experienced within the circuit. The question before us, 
therefore, is not a question of politics. It is a question of fairness. 
The judges in the ninth circuit simply cannot keep up with the number 
of cases which are being decided. It is nearly impossible logistically 
for judges within the circuit to know the law as it is being decided 
within the circuit, and therefore you see inconsistencies, you see 
problems with not staying up with decisions that have been made 
elsewhere within the jurisdiction, and therefore we see the cases being 
overturned.
  So, should the people of the ninth circuit have to continue to face 
the unnecessary delays and judicial uncertainty which is becoming 
commonplace within the circuit? Should the judges of the ninth circuit 
continue to be burdened with a system which prevents the kind of 
collegiality which is necessary for effective decisionmaking? Any 
objective analysis of these questions reveals that the answer must be 
no. And, if the answer is no, then we must act now to split the ninth 
circuit

[[Page S8053]]

and provide the people within this jurisdiction the access to justice 
which all Americans expect and are entitled to. Speaking for the people 
I represent, I say that it is fundamentally unfair to deny the people 
of Idaho justice. Yet, the amendment of the Senator from California 
would continue the kind of injustice that was exposed nearly a quarter 
of a century ago.
  In reviewing a proposal of this magnitude, I believe it is important 
to speak with those who are most familiar with the situation. With this 
in mind, I asked Idaho's attorney general, Al Lance, to share his views 
with me. I believe his words are worth repeating at this time. He said:

       My concerns regarding the ninth circuit include its 
     unwieldy size, inconsistency in decisions issued by its 
     various panels, excessive delay in the issuance of those 
     decisions, as well as the circuit's very high reversal rate 
     when its decisions are reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 
     Furthermore, it is my firm belief that in view of the 
     unwieldy nature of the circuit as it is presently configured, 
     that the true significance of regional and local issues is 
     neither fully appreciated by the court nor reflected in the 
     court's decisions. Establishing a new Twelfth Circuit Court 
     of Appeals will resolve these concerns and, at the same time, 
     reduce the average case processing time by over 400 days to a 
     time period consistent with most other circuits.

  In closing, I would like to quote another friend of mine who is the 
Governor of the State of Idaho, Phil Batt. With regard to the ninth 
circuit, he stated:
       The court has been overloaded for a long time, and it is in 
     the interest of everyone, especially justice, to split it.

  That is what this debate is truly about: justice. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for justice and to vote against the amendment which 
is before us. Americans are entitled to justice and they are entitled 
to access to the justice system, and it is being denied currently in 
the ninth circuit. The remedy, as proposed by the Senator from New 
Hampshire, is before us. It is a quarter of a century overdue. It is 
time for us to take the right action and provide that access to justice 
for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Bryan].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the senior Senator from California.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the senior 
Senator from California. In my view, and I speak as one who has 
appeared before the ninth circuit as an attorney, the provision 
included in this appropriation bill to divide the ninth circuit and 
create a new 12th circuit is inappropriate, ill-conceived and ill-
advised. I must express my dismay that my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee have seen fit to usurp the jurisdiction of the 
Judiciary Committee on this matter. If there was ever an issue that 
deserved to be considered in a thoughtful and careful manner by the 
Judiciary Committee, it is the issue of reforming our Federal court 
system.
  The Commerce, Justice, State appropriation bill is clearly not an 
appropriate venue to debate an issue of this magnitude, one that will 
have far-reaching policy implications, not only for those of us in the 
West but for the entire Nation.
  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1997 would 
reformulate the ninth circuit to include California, Nevada and the 
Pacific territories, and create a new twelfth circuit consisting of 
Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.
  In the 104th Congress, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Washington introduced legislation that would have placed California, 
Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and the Pacific territories in the ninth 
circuit. That legislation was later modified by the Judiciary Committee 
to establish a new ninth circuit consisting of California, Hawaii and 
the Pacific territories, and I have been further advised that at one 
time a proposal was floating around that would divide northern and 
southern California into separate circuits.
  I mention these various iterations of dividing the ninth circuit to 
make the point that there is a variety of views as to how best to 
address the ninth circuit and whether or not it should be divided, and, 
if so, how it should be divided. But in my view, it is clear the 
proposal to divide the ninth circuit is more reflective of an act of 
political expediency than the prudential concerns related to the 
administration of justice. The sponsors of this provision claim that 
the ninth circuit is unable to effectively manage its caseload because 
it has grown too big and that the solution to this perceived problem is 
to divide the circuit. But this, I fear, is only a smokescreen, for the 
real reason splitting the ninth circuit being proposed at this time is 
simply that many do not like the decisions rendered by the circuit.
  While they will not admit that one purpose of dividing the ninth 
circuit is to change the substantive outcomes of decisions, the 
sponsors have made clear their displeasure with many decisions issued 
by the court, particularly in the area of natural resource protection. 
Surely not all of the decisions in the ninth circuit, or for that 
matter any circuit, come down the way that all of us would like. I, 
myself, have cosponsored legislation that would reverse the effect of 
some of the ninth circuit decisions. But I do not believe that 
differences over the decisions rendered by the ninth circuit are an 
adequate basis to split the circuit.
  What kind of precedent would the Congress then be setting? Would a 
circuit court of appeals face possible reconfiguration whenever 
Congress does not like the decisions being rendered? Does this Congress 
really want to support what is essentially judicial gerrymandering? I 
hope not. The ninth circuit serves nine Western States and has been one 
circuit for more than 100 years. Whenever the issue of splitting the 
circuit is put to a vote of the judges and lawyers in the circuit, the 
vote has been overwhelmingly to retain the circuit as it is currently 
constituted.
  Who better than those judges who comprise the circuit and those 
lawyers who represent litigants before the ninth circuit to determine 
whether or not the ninth circuit is working effectively or not?
  It has been my experience that neither judges nor lawyers have been 
shy about stating an opinion when they think something needs to be 
changed.
  The last study of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was by the 
1973 Hruska Commission. A fellow Nevadan, the Honorable Charles 
Wiggins, a ninth circuit court judge, served as a member of that 
commission. Parenthetically, Judge Wiggins first served as a Republican 
Member of the House before serving on the ninth circuit. In a letter to 
California's senior Senator, he stated:

       My understanding of the role of the circuit courts in our 
     system of Federal justice has changed over the years from 
     that which I held when the Hruska Commission issued its final 
     report in 1973. At that time, I endorsed the recommendations 
     of the Commission calling for a division of the fifth and 
     ninth circuits. I have grown wiser in the succeeding 22 
     years.

  We should heed Judge Wiggins' experience--act wisely and not 
precipitously in dividing this circuit.
  The last time a circuit court of appeals split was in 1980 when the 
fifth circuit was divided and the eleventh created. It should be noted 
that the judges of the fifth circuit unanimously requested the split, a 
situation we clearly do not have with the ninth circuit.
  In a recent letter, Judge Wiggins wrote me:

       Circuit division is not the answer. It has not proved 
     effective in reducing delays. The former fifth circuit ranked 
     sixth in case processing times just prior to its division 
     into the fifth and eleventh circuits. Since the division, the 
     new fifth circuit is still ranked fifth or seventh, while the 
     new eleventh circuit now ranks 12th, the slowest of all 
     circuits. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges are the 
     fastest in the Nation in disposing of cases once the panel 
     has received the case.

  So the ninth circuit would appear to take the appropriate 
administrative steps to manage its caseloads through innovative ways 
that other circuits use as models.
  The ninth circuit disposes of cases in 1.9 months from oral argument 
to rendering a decision. That is less than the national average by 2 
weeks. This currently makes the ninth circuit the second most efficient 
circuit in the country.
  So it is obvious the circuit has recognized caseload management is an 
area

[[Page S8054]]

that needs improving and is successfully addressing it.
  I find it particularly ironic that in this political environment in 
which budget decisions are hotly debated and new expenditures are 
closely watched that a new circuit would be proposed, because it is 
estimated that a courthouse alone would cost some $60 million and there 
would be additional costs that would be involved in the transition 
period. So, therefore, we would face the continuing cost of operating 
an additional circuit court when, at this point, no determination has 
been made in a fair and objective way that dividing the circuit is 
necessary.
  In my view, the ninth circuit has worked well for the nine Western 
States it serves and will continue to do so into the future. For those 
who believe the ninth circuit must be split, I urge the support of the 
Feinstein amendment to establish a commission to review the structure 
and the alignment of the Federal courts of appeals. This is a 
thoughtful and prudent way to address this issue.

  When the information necessary to determine whether any circuits need 
their geographical jurisdiction changed is available, we can then 
debate this issue more intelligently, having been thoroughly informed 
as to the facts. But let us not split the ninth circuit at this time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alaska 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my good 
friend, the Senator from California, the amendment which would strike 
the provisions of the bill to divide the ninth circuit into two 
separate circuits of more manageable size and certainly more manageable 
responsibility.
  The division of the ninth circuit is warranted for three very 
important reasons: its size and population; its caseload; and its 
astounding reversal rate by the U.S. Supreme Court. Who holds the ninth 
circuit court accountable? It is the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Let's talk about size and population. I have a chart here which shows 
the magnitude of the area covered by the ninth circuit. The ninth 
circuit is, by far, the largest of the 13 judicial circuits, 
encompassing nine States and stretching from the Arctic Circle in my 
State to the border of Mexico and across the international date line. 
That is how big it is.
  We are not against California or Nevada. What we want is a 
recognition of timely judicial action.
  Population: The second chart I have shows the number of people served 
by the ninth circuit. Over 49 million people are served by the ninth 
circuit, almost 60 percent more than are served by the next largest 
circuit. By the year 2010, not very far away, the Census Bureau 
estimates that the ninth circuit's population will be more than 63 
million, a 43-percent increase in just 13 years. Talk about not doing 
anything rash. This population is increasing out of control. We better 
start doing something now.
  On the issue of accountability, Mr. President, and that is most 
important, the only factor more disturbing than the geographic 
magnitude of the circuit is the magnitude of its ever-expanding docket. 
The ninth circuit has more cases than any other circuit. Last year 
alone, the ninth circuit had an astounding 8,502 new filings. It is 
because of its caseload that the entire appellate process in the ninth 
circuit is the second slowest in the Nation. How do they explain that? 
As a former chief judge, Judge Wallace of the ninth circuit, stated:

       It takes about 4 months longer to complete an appeal in our 
     court as compared to the national median time.

  Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger put it more succinctly when he 
called the ninth circuit an ``unmanageable administrative 
monstrosity.''
  Let's look at this reversal rate which I want to talk to you about, 
because there is the issue of accountability. Our responsibility of 
judicial oversight demands action now. Unfortunately, this massive size 
often results in the decrease in the ability of the judges to keep 
abreast of legal developments within this jurisdiction. The large 
number of judges scattered over a large area inevitably results in 
difficulty in reaching consistent circuit decisions. This judicial 
inconsistency has led to continual increases in the reversal rate of 
the ninth circuit decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  During the last Supreme Court session, the Court reversed 19 of the 
20 cases that it heard from the ninth circuit. That is an astounding 95 
percent reversal rate. How do they explain that? They don't. It is 
embarrassing, I would think, for the judges. The Supreme Court holds 
the circuit accountable to the tune of a 95 percent reversal rate. It's 
about accountability, Mr. President.

  Here is the relative ninth circuit reversal rate: 95 percent in 1996; 
83 percent in 1995; 82 percent in 1994; 73 percent in 1993; 63 percent 
in 1992.
  Why does this reversal rate continue to increase? Because the circuit 
is simply too big. Intracircuit conflicts are the result. Ninth circuit 
Judge Diramuid O'Scannlain, a sitting judge on the ninth circuit, 
described the problem as follows:

       An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it 
     must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a 
     coherent body of law. A circuit judge must feel as though he 
     or she speaks for the whole court and not merely an 
     individual. As more and more judges are added, it becomes 
     harder for the court to remain accountable to lawyers, other 
     judges, and the public at large.

  Listen to that, ``the public at large.''

       As the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing 
     the ability to keep track of precedents and the ability to 
     know what our circuit's law is. In short, bigger is not 
     better.

  Another sitting judge on the ninth circuit, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, 
agrees:

       With so many judges on the ninth circuit and so many cases, 
     there is no way a judge can read all the other judges' 
     opinions. . . It's an impossibility.

  Now there you have it, Mr. President. Two statements from two sitting 
judges about what the problem is.
  Some today argue that the Senate is acting in haste. This is entirely 
untrue. The concept of dividing the ninth circuit is not new. Numerous 
proposals to divide the ninth circuit were debated in Congress since 
before World War II. More recent congressional history includes:
  A 1973 congressional commission to study realignment with the circuit 
court, chaired by Senator Hruska, which strongly called for division of 
the ninth circuit.
  Congressional hearings have been held in 1974, 1975, 1983, 1989, 1990 
and 1995.
  A split of the ninth circuit has been reported from a Senate 
committee on three occasions, Mr. President.
  How long do we have to wait? Dividing the ninth has been studied, 
debated and analyzed to death. It is time for action.
  I have one final chart. This is a statement from retired U.S. Supreme 
Court Justice Warren Burger:

       I strongly believe that the ninth circuit is far too 
     cumbersome and it should be divided.

  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who reviews, if you 
will, the appeals, has this opinion:

       I have increasing doubts and increasing reservations about 
     the wisdom of retaining the ninth in its historic size, and 
     with its historic jurisdiction.

  Honorable Diarmuid O'Scannlain, ninth circuit:

       We (the ninth circuit) cannot grow without limit. . . As 
     the number of opinions increases, we judges risk losing the 
     ability to know what our circuit's law is. . .

  Judge Kleinfeld currently sitting on the court:

       The ninth circuit is too large and has too many cases--
     making it impossible to keep abreast of ninth circuit 
     decisions.

  Our own former Member, a Senator from Alabama, former Alabama Supreme 
Court Chief Justice Howell Heflin, who we have the greatest respect 
for:

       Congress recognized that a point is reached where the 
     addition of judges decreases the effectiveness of the court, 
     complicates the administration of uniform law, and 
     potentially diminishes the quality of justice within a 
     circuit.

  That is our own former Senator.
  Finally, recently retired Senator Mark Hatfield:

       The increased likelihood of intracircuit conflicts is an 
     important justification for splitting the court.

[[Page S8055]]

  There you have some of the most respected people we know relative to 
this subject. The Commerce, State, Justice bill splits the circuit in a 
rational way. The States of California and Nevada, due to their large 
population, particularly of California, and the rapid population growth 
of Nevada, will comprise the new ninth circuit. The balance of the 
States of the circuit will form the new twelfth circuit. The 49 million 
residents of the ninth circuit are the persons who suffer. Many wait 
years before cases are heard and decided, prompting many to forgo the 
entire appellate process.
  In brief, the ninth circuit has become a circuit where justice is not 
swift and justice is not always served. We have known of the problem of 
the ninth circuit for a long time. It is time to solve the problem. It 
is time for action now, and it is time for timely justice.
  I urge my colleagues to reflect on this reality and the 
responsibility that this Senate has to address it. Let's not forget 
that reversal rate relative to the chart on my right. I am going to 
leave that up as I yield the remainder of my time, because this is the 
real story, Mr. President. Here is the accountability of the court, the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and the number of cases that they 
have reversed. It is absolutely embarrassing and, as a consequence, 
action should be taken by this body now.
  This is nothing against my good friends from California or the State 
of California. This just happens to be the reality of the court that we 
are forced to operate under. To suggest that somehow we don't like the 
decisions is absolutely silly and unrealistic. These decisions are made 
on legal merits, as they should be. They have nothing to do relative to 
the location of the court. This court is simply overworked and is 
unresponsive to the public, as indicated by the Supreme Court's 
reversal rate.
  Mr. President, I thank the floor manager. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in the bill before us, we have in there 
something called the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act 
of 1997. It is hidden in the back of the bill within the general 
provisions, but boy, does it have great import. This language asks us 
to split the ninth circuit court into two circuits--the ninth circuit 
would include California, Guam, Nevada, and the Northern Mariana 
Islands while the twelfth circuit would include Alaska, Arizona, 
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Needless to say, I am 
certain my friends from these States will have something to say about 
this matter.
  While there will be Senators here to talk about the pros and cons of 
splitting this ninth circuit court, I would like to say to my 
colleagues that this is neither the time nor place to be talking about 
this issue at all. As far as I can tell, this is a matter that belongs 
in the most able hands of our Judiciary Committee. This is not a money 
matter. This is true and true new authorization language that has no 
place being on our appropriations bill.
  In our full committee mark of the bill, Senators Reid and Boxer asked 
the committee to create a commission to study the state of all the 
circuits and make recommendations according to the big picture. The 
rationale behind this is to let the experts who know and understand our 
circuit courts tell us what they think before we do anything drastic. 
Expanding Federal caseloads is a nationwide problem requiring a 
nationwide solution. We can't sit here on our appropriations bill and 
pretend to be experts as to what's best for the ninth circuit or all 
the circuit courts, especially without ever having any hearings on the 
topic, and especially not knowing how much our decision will cost us. 
Believe me, splitting the ninth circuit court will without a doubt 
incur upon us additional costs that we haven't even begun to predict.
  So I urge my chairman and my colleagues to listen when I say that 
this issue must go. We need to give this to the Judiciary Committee 
where I have confidence they will make an informed and thorough 
decision in a field that is theirs and theirs alone.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, can the Chair advise us of the present time 
status?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 30 
minutes; the Senator from California controls 19 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from California, 
if it is agreeable, that we move to the Senator from Arizona for 5 
minutes while we work on a possible unanimous consent agreement for a 
vote.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is acceptable.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. This 
proposal to divide the ninth circuit is especially important to my 
State.
  Mr. GREGG. May I ask the Senator from Arizona to suspend for a second 
while I propound a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. KYL. Sure.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur 
on or in relation to the pending Feinstein amendment at 7:45 p.m. this 
evening; and further, that the time between now and then be equally 
divided in the usual form, and that there be no amendments in the 
second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  As I said, this provision in the bill to divide the ninth circuit is 
very important to the State of Arizona because Arizona is the second 
largest State in the existing ninth circuit, both in terms of 
population and caseload. It, California, and Nevada are all three very 
fast growing. And there is no question that the caseload will continue 
to grow at least in proportion to the population.
  Phoenix, AZ, is now the sixth largest city in the country. Arizona 
is, I believe, the fastest growing State in the country. So not only do 
we have a situation in which we are growing very rapidly, along with 
Nevada and California, but the proposed amendment would result in a 
division of the circuit which would affect my own State of Arizona. So 
I speak to that issue.
  Now, it is not my suggestion, Mr. President, that the circuit be 
divided. There is a division of opinion in Arizona on that that 
suggests that the bench and bar are split. I do not think there is a 
clear consensus in my State as to whether the circuit should be 
divided, but I think there is a pretty clear recognition that it will 
be. It will happen sooner or later. It is inevitable, as several of my 
colleagues have already pointed out here. There is no question, because 
of its size and other factors, the circuit is going to be divided one 
way or another.
  The question is how will it be divided? On that question I think we 
have to look at this question of size, population, growth, caseload 
growth, and so on. Because if, for example, you divided the circuit the 
way it calls for in the bill, the caseload division would be as 
follows: The circuit comprised of California and Nevada would have 63 
percent of the cases, and the remainder of the circuit would have 37 
percent of the cases. That is about a 2-to-1 division, showing just how 
big California is. Probably in terms of caseload, the sounder way to do 
it would be just to have California. It would still be about 60-40 in 
favor of California versus all of the rest of the States in the 
circuit.
  But I gather that the proponents of this have decided to accommodate 
States who have expressed a willingness, through their Senators, to be 
added to California or to remain with California, and that Nevada has 
done that, as a result of which, to accommodate Nevada, it has been put 
with California.
  Now, if Arizona were to be added to that circuit, as some people 
suggest--again, there is division of view on this--the caseload would 
be 73 percent for the Arizona, Nevada, California circuit; 27 percent 
for the rest of the circuit. Obviously, that is not a good division for 
the circuits. So I have had to consider it from both a perspective of 
my State and what makes sense how to approach this issue. It clearly 
does not make sense, from a caseload division, to divide the circuit in 
a way that would add the three fastest growing States--Arizona, Nevada 
and California--together. I think it is bad enough to add Nevada and 
California together, though I do not deny that Nevada has a right to be 
with California if they desire. But it will soon be unbalanced and soon 
be the largest circuit in the country.

[[Page S8056]]

  Mr. President, in the end, I conclude I will not oppose this 
proposal. I would like to add two comments to those that have been made 
by my colleagues. First, there has been a suggestion that this circuit 
would be gerrymandered. I do want to suggest that that is not true. It 
is not true politically. The division of Democrat and Republican 
nominees would be exactly the same with the new division as it would be 
under the existing circuit. So I do not think that anybody believes 
this is about gerrymandering in a political sense. The percentage of 
Democrats and Republicans would be the same. Moreover, it is not a 
geographical gerrymandering. It simply takes two of the States of the 
circuit and leaves the remaining circuit as it is.
  Again, I would prefer that Nevada remain with the rest of the circuit 
to have a more evenly balanced caseload. Nevada wants to go with 
California--fine. That creates the anomaly that Arizona is divided from 
the rest of the circuit. But in the day of air travel, I do not think 
that is a particularly difficult problem for us, particularly since the 
committee has seen fit to designate both Seattle and Phoenix 
administrative sites of the circuit. So you have both a northern and 
southern administrative site. I know in the existing ninth circuit, 
cases are argued in Phoenix, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and 
so on. Because of its size, you have to accommodate the travel needs of 
the parties, the litigants. So there is an accommodation to that. And 
it would exist in this new circuit as well.

  But at least the people in the new circuit would not have to travel 
to California. So it seems to me that, on balance, maybe the best of a 
difficult situation has been made. I should say, the best has been made 
of a difficult situation. That is how to make a division that results 
in a fairly even distribution of cases, No. 1, and that does not divide 
the State of California, which I objected to along with Senator 
Feinstein. So in the end, Mr. President, conceding that division is 
ultimately going to occur, it seems to me that this is a division that 
makes sense. Therefore I will not oppose it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think the distinguished Senator from Arizona knows 
I greatly respect him, from working together on other issues. I think 
we work very well together.
  I want to directly address something that he has said about the 
fairness of this split, particularly with respect to the size. I say to 
him, that isn't the issue. The issue is how the judges are split. I say 
to the Senator, this legislation splits the judges. The way in which it 
splits the judges is 15 judges for the ninth circuit, and 13 judges for 
the newly formed twelfth circuit. Now, the caseload means that the 
ninth circuit court judges have a 50 percent greater caseload per judge 
than do the twelfth circuit court judges.
  The Senator and I discussed these kinds of issues a year or so ago. I 
hope you will recall when we were discussing this in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  There is a letter dated July 18 of this year to Senator Reid from 
Chief Judge Procter Hug. What Judge Hug points out is:

       Under the bill, the Ninth Circuit is to have 15 judges and 
     the Twelfth Circuit is to have 13 judges. The Ninth Circuit 
     would have a 50% greater caseload per judge than the Twelfth.

  He goes on and shows the total for California, Nevada, Guam, Northern 
Marianas, with a total caseload of 5,448.

       With 15 judges, the caseload per judge--363 cases, then the 
     caseload for Alaska, 204; Arizona, 891; Hawaii, 204; Idaho, 
     141; Montana, 175; Oregon, 626; Washington, 871, with a total 
     of 3,112.
       With 13 judges, the caseload per judge--239 cases. That is 
     one of my big objections. One thing I would just bet my life 
     on is, as a product of a study, there will be a fairer 
     distribution of judges.

  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If it is on your time, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. KYL. That would be up to Senator Gregg. I am going to agree with 
you, so perhaps----
  Mr. GREGG. I have no problem with that. This colloquy can be on our 
time.
  Mr. KYL. I want to say, we discussed the allocation of judges before. 
The Senator is exactly correct. I totally agree with you there should 
be a fair allocation, meaning that it should be in rough proportion to 
the caseload, and the projected caseload, not just the existing 
caseload. Therefore, if that means that there should be a different 
division of the judges vis-a-vis the States in the new circuit, I would 
not only have no objection to that, but I would join the Senator from 
California in assuring that that is the case.
  This was not my proposal, as the Senator from California knows. But I 
would suspect that the proponents of this amendment would be very happy 
to ensure that that distribution of judges is made a part of the 
legislation. At least, I would work with the Senator from California to 
assure that that would be the case.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I very much appreciate that, and I take you at your 
word. However, what this legislation does will be the law if it is 
accepted by the House.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Could I ask my friend from California a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Of course.
  Mr. GREGG. At this time I would have to reclaim my time because we do 
have some additional speakers. So any additional colloquy should come 
off the time of the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may just make my quick statement here.
  On four occasions, the Federal judges of the ninth circuit and the 
practicing lawyers of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference have voted 
in opposition to splitting the circuits. The official bar organization 
of Arizona--as recently as July 14, a few days ago--and the bars of 
California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada, and the National 
Federal Bar Association, all have taken positions against the circuit 
division. No State bar organization to this day has taken a position in 
favor of circuit division, let alone this division.
  Now, let me try to begin to summarize here.
  I believe strongly--and I think the other side knows I do not throw 
these comments around loosely--that this is really being done for the 
wrong reasons and in the wrong way. I think some people did not like 
some of the decisions, specifically in mining and grazing. For some it 
is being done because they think they will get more judges for their 
State. I have had Senators tell me that directly. For some, a new 
courthouse is attractive.
  The point is, the House of Representatives has passed the very bill, 
the amendment of which I am carrying here in the Senate. This proposal, 
notwithstanding anything anyone has said, as a member of the Judiciary 
Committee for the last 4\1/2\ years --there has never, Mr. President, 
in the time you've been there, there has never been a hearing on this 
split. There has never been a discussion of the ramifications of this 
split on legal precedent or forum shopping. There has never been input 
from the judicial council, from the judges, from the bar associations 
on this split. That is fact, Mr. President. That is fact.
  Yet, an appropriations committee has stolen the jurisdiction of the 
Judiciary Committee and moved ahead and proposed a split a few weeks 
ago--2 days later they had a split which split California in half--the 
next day that was gone and there was the split we are faced with today. 
That is why I say it is a gerrymander.
  If this were a map before a court on an electoral district with 
Arizona floating out here alone, they would say, aha, it is a 
gerrymander. Yet it can be done by a committee that does not even have 
authorizing oversight jurisdiction, and, bingo, it is before the full 
body. I really have a problem with that. I do not think that is right.
  I happen to agree with my chairman, California is going to have 50 
million people by the year 2025. We should take a look at whether or 
not the interests of justice would be carried out by splitting the 
largest circuit in the Union. I do not have a problem with that.
  What I do have a problem with is worrying, aha, is this being done 
because Montana does not like a mining decision? Is it being done 
because Washington does not like a timber decision? Is it being done 
because someone else doesn't like another decision? Is it being done 
because a state wants an additional judge?
  I mean, this is a very real and pertinent consideration because never 
before in the history of the Union has a

[[Page S8057]]

circuit been split in this manner. So it is indeed very, very 
important.
  No consideration of costs. I pointed out the Pasadena and San 
Francisco courthouses; $140 million has just been spent on them. My 
goodness, I can see the spot done now on television. ``They spend all 
this money.'' I believe there is no way you can build new courthouses, 
and staff them with duplicate positions, and not have it cost at least 
$100 million in 1997 dollars. And do you know what? This goes into 
place, Mr. President, in October of this year.
  This is almost the end of July, and then there's August, September, 
and October 1 this goes into effect. No hearing; no study; no talk; no 
what do you think, bar of Arizona; what do you think, bar of Nevada; 
what do you think, bar of Alaska; or what do you think, bar of Idaho? 
It doesn't meet the smell test. That is the problem for me.
  Now, let me talk----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may finish my thought, the point has been made--
and the distinguished Senator from Alaska made this point very well--
that 28 out of 29 cases of this session were reversed by the United 
States Supreme Court. Bingo, it is a terrible circuit. Well, let me say 
that that is only 28 cases out of over 4,480 cases. It is the largest 
circuit. That is a very small percentage of the cases it successfully 
adjudicated.
  Let me just go back to Judge Hug's letter because I believe there is 
something important here. The caseload per judge in the ninth circuit 
would be 124 cases per judge higher than the twelfth circuit, or 52 
percent greater, as I have said, than the twelfth.
  Then he raises this:

       The provision in the bill for coequal clerks in the twelfth 
     Circuit is completely unworkable. How can it be efficiently 
     administered in this way? Is the administration of the 
     circuit to be done in two separate, coequal headquarters? 
     Where would the circuit executive be located?

  These are all questions that need to be answered. This thing would go 
into effect on October 1. No question is answered.
  Then Judge Hug says in his letter:

       Consider the travel time and expense of the judges. 
     Presumably, the judges from Alaska and Montana will need to 
     travel half of the time to Phoenix, and the Arizona judges 
     will need to travel half the time to Seattle. Presently, the 
     circuit headquarters in San Francisco is equal distance, and 
     the air routes convenient. This would not be the case in the 
     new twelfth circuit. I don't know whether that's good or bad. 
     My point is that it ought to be looked at. If we had been 
     able to move ahead, and the House and the Senate agreed on 
     the study, it would have been done by now. The study would 
     have been done by now. It is a year and a half ago. It would 
     have been done by now. Instead, we are faced with another 
     arbitrary proposal for a split. We are rushing it through. It 
     is an arbitrary split. No one has looked at costs, or at fair 
     distribution of judges; no one has heard from a judge or from 
     a bar association on this split; and no members of any of the 
     bars of any of the States have indicated their support for 
     this--none, zero, zilch, none. October 1, it goes into play. 
     It does not make sense.

  How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask for 1 minute.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alaska a minute.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe the Senator from California indicated, Mr. 
President, that new California judges would have a 50 percent increase 
in caseload, and the Senator from California indicated that would not 
be enough judges. I wonder if she meant to say that, in the new ninth 
circuit, there would be 63 percent new cases and 53 percent judges, and 
in the twelfth circuit, there would be 37 percent new cases and 42 
percent judges, which are the figures that we have from the committee, 
which hardly reflect a 50 percent increase in the caseload.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond. I am 
reading from a letter dated July 18, signed by Procter Hug, Chief 
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. What he points out 
is--he is using what I believe is current caseload. I would be happy to 
share this with the Senator. I read this accurately:

       The total caseload filings in California, Nevada, Guam and 
     the Northern Marianas would be 5,448. The filings in Alaska, 
     Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington would 
     be 3,012.

  The point is, with 13 judges, the twelfth circuit would have 239 
cases per judge. The ninth circuit would have 363 cases per judge. That 
is an unfair allocation of cases per judge.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will not further comment, other than to point out 
that I don't think it is a fair statement to suggest that California 
judges would have a 50 percent increase in caseload, because that is 
not reflected.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator misunderstood me. If I might respectfully 
get this straight----
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no further questions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will reclaim a moment of my time to 
say this. Let me quote the chief judge:

       The ninth circuit would have a 50 percent greater caseload 
     per judge than the twelfth circuit.

  That letter is here. Anyone can see it.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Could the Chair advise us of the time status?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 14 minutes 
and 48 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from California?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. She has 9 minutes 2 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the 
committee, 9 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I shall not use that much time. I do 
appreciate the courtesy of the manager of the bill.
  Mr. President, we have studied this matter to death. The issue, in 
1973, was recommended by Senator Hruska and the Hruska Commission was 
created. It recommended then, in 1973, that the ninth circuit court be 
split. Every Congress we hear the same thing from the large delegation 
in the House and the two Senators in the Senate from California: we 
need more study. I think that is what we are hearing again now--have 
another study.
  It has only been 24 years now that we have been studying since the 
first commission reported. But, of course, we do need the advice of 
another commission.
  Mr. President, I am a California lawyer. I was raised in California, 
and I am pleased to have that background. But I tell you, in all 
sincerity, I cannot believe that we can continue this situation. This 
chart--I am not sure it can be seen, Mr. President. This chart shows 
the population and caseload of the circuits. Clearly, the population is 
almost 50 million people in the ninth circuit, and it requires some 
change when, clearly, the average of all of the others is somewhere 
around 20 million people.
  I want to address the concern spoken to, I think, by my good friend 
from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. It has been 13 years now since a Hawaii 
resident was appointed to the ninth circuit. Fourteen judges have been 
seated on the circuit since that time, but Hawaii was never recognized. 
Senator Inouye has included an amendment in this provision that 
guarantees that at least one judge will be appointed to the circuit 
court of appeals from the new circuit, when it is created, from each 
State. Now, I think the Senate should listen to that kind of 
frustration and should listen to the frustration of those who see how 
long it takes for a case to be decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  Mr. President, I said the other day that the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals judges come to our State. They come during the summer, and they 
have a delightful time visiting our State. In the wintertime, all our 
people fly south and some of our lawyers like that. But the litigants 
don't like it because the average time that an appeal is pending before 
the ninth circuit is so long, it puts a great burden upon our States, 
the smaller States in this circuit.
  Now, in 1995, the Senate Judiciary Committee report showed that New 
York accounted for approximately 87 percent of the second circuit 
docket; Texas cases were approximately 70 percent of the fifth circuit 
docket. We have considered splitting the ninth circuit before several 
times since I have been in the Senate. Mr. President, the overload of 
the ninth circuit is now such a serious problem, and it is only going 
to get worse if we continue to

[[Page S8058]]

talk about another commission to discuss whether this split should take 
place.
  The appellate process, for almost one-fifth of the citizens of the 
United States, will continue to be inadequate. I believe we are doing 
California a favor by splitting this court. They are the only State 
that has one circuit all to itself, all to itself--well, Nevada could 
make the decision to join if they wish. But the establishment of 
tribunals is a responsibility of the Congress, not of a commission. It 
is one of our most important responsibilities under the Constitution. I 
believe the Senate will shirk its responsibility if we do not act to 
correct this problem of the ninth circuit, and I urge the Senate to do 
what this amendment would do: create a new twelfth circuit and allocate 
to it the States that are suffering greatly by the current crowded 
situation and long delays in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I thank the Chair and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, does the Senator from California have any 
additional speakers?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to know how much time I have remaining, 
if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator plan to close? We have one additional 
speaker. I will have that speaker go if the Senator is planning to 
close as the final speaker.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will speak after the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the balance of our time to the Senator from 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from California makes a 
serious argument: we should not split the circuits because we will 
waste the $140 million investment in a courthouse in San Francisco, 
except that we can split the circuits if this so-called study 
commission says we should do so, and she would then have no objection.
  Well, either the courthouse is an important consideration, or it is 
not an important consideration. Obviously, Mr. President, it is not an 
important consideration. I presume--I hope--that the Senator from 
California is not arguing that, even if there is a split, all of the 
staff and all of the people who are now in that courthouse in San 
Francisco would still be there and everything has to be added onto 
that. That is often a way in which the Federal bureaucracy operates. 
But there is no reason in the world for us to allow it to operate in 
that fashion under this set of circumstances.
  This can be done efficiently and effectively. But that is the 
fundamental argument against this amendment and in favor of the bill as 
it stands. The ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee said 
that this is the wrong way to act. The Senator from California says 
this is the wrong way to act because it is on an appropriations bill.
  Yet, 2 years ago when a bill practically identical to this was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee, after full hearings and a full 
debate, they objected to it even being debated on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. Now for the first time we have an opportunity to do so.
  This Senator has favored this flip since the early 1980's. And this 
is the first time we have ever been able so much as to debate it on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate.
  The arguments against the proposal for split are essentially 
procedural. ``Oh, no, we have not had enough hearings. We have not 
talked about it for a long enough time. There have not been enough 
study commissions.''
  There have been hearings for decades. There has been a debate for 
decades. It simply cannot be argued in any kind of rationale manner 
that a circuit with this number of States, with 14 million square miles 
of land and water, with almost 50 million people growing more rapidly 
than any other part of the country, with 28 authorized judges at the 
present time, 10 more requested on top of that, can be a collegial 
body, a court that can understand the cases that come in front of it, a 
court in which the members can even learn the names of the other 
members of the court.
  Of course a division is appropriate, and the division that is being 
discussed here today is the division, if there is to be one, that the 
Senators in opposition asked for.
  We are criticized because the bill changed in form as it got in front 
of us. Well, California is not divided because the Senators from 
California ask that it not be divided. And we went along.
  Nevada remains a part of the ninth circuit because the Senators from 
Nevada asked that that be the case as against the bill that was 
reported 2 years ago.
  Hawaii and the trust territories are with the new twelfth circuit 
because, assuming a division, that is where they wanted to be.
  Yes, there have been changes, but they have been changes requested by 
the very Senators who are here on the floor arguing against the result 
of their requests. Justice in these circuit courts will be done better 
in circuits that are roughly similar to the other circuits--all of the 
other circuits in the United States. Each of these circuits will still 
have more square miles than any other, except for, I believe it is the 
tenth in the Mountain States, and more when you include Alaska. The 
ninth circuit will still be the largest of any and all of them.
  I don't believe this is going to be the last such division. But it is 
a division whose time came almost a quarter of a century ago. And that 
has been resisted by lawyers and judges who are comfortable with the 
present situation, with the wonderful travel opportunities they have, 
and rank that convenience ahead of the convenience of individuals 
seeking justice before those courts who can be served far better, far 
closer to home, with far more understanding, if this division becomes 
law, than if we simply say, ``Oh, let's wait. Let's have another study. 
And let's let that study come up with the same results we did before. 
And then we will have another excuse to oppose the division.''
  That is what we got when we heard, on the one hand, ``Fine, let's 
have the study, and we will agree with it. But, no, we can't divide the 
circuit because we have a brandnew $140 million courthouse in San 
Francisco.''
  No, Mr. President, it is time for the Senate of the United States to 
deal with this question as a matter of substance today. It is time to 
do justice. It is time to reject this amendment and pass this bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I have 9 minutes remaining 
on my time. I would like to yield 7 of them to the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, this is not the right way to do this. Let me repeat 
that again. This is not the right way to do this. If the circuit were 
to be split, we should do it in a way we have done it in the past.
  When some of my colleagues who have argued for the split in the past 
have come before the committee, they have said some of the following 
things. The argument is, ``Well, the reason we want a split is we don't 
want to have the court, basically a California-dominated court, making 
judgments for the folks in my State. We are different.''
  And I point out to my colleagues who say that, you know, it is a 
funny thing about the circuit courts. Our Founding Fathers set the 
circuit courts up for a basic fundamental reason. They didn't want 50 
different interpretations of the Federal Constitution. It is kind of 
strange. The whole purpose of the circuit court of appeals was to make 
sure there was a uniform view as to how to read the Constitution--not a 
Montana reading, not a Washington State reading, not a Nevada reading, 
not a Hawaii reading, and not an Alaska reading. Geography is relevant 
only in terms of convenience--not ideology.
  This is all about ideology at its core. That is what this is about. 
That is what the attempt to split it is about.
  There is no data to sustain that this should be done. Let the 
Judicial Conference make a judgment, make a recommendation to us. Let 
them decide as they have in the past.

[[Page S8059]]

  I say to my friends from the South, before I got here, we split up 
what used to be a giant circuit from Texas to Florida. The Senator's 
home State was part of the Presiding Officer's home State, was part of 
this giant district of the circuit court, and it got split. We did it 
the right way. We got the facts. We heard from the Judicial Conference. 
We listened to the court.
  This is about politics. It is no way to deal with the court. It isn't 
how to do this.
  Let's look at what we have. We don't have any data on the operation 
of the circuit as it is presently configured. So, therefore, it seems 
to me, we should at least give some weight to those folks who are on 
the court, and those folks who are litigants argue before the court--
the bar of those States.
  With that in mind, let me point out that the Ninth Circuit Judicial 
Council, the governing body of all the courts in the ninth circuit, is 
unanimously opposed to this--Republican appointees to that court, 
Democratic appointees to that court, liberal appointees, conservative 
appointees, pointed-head appointees, flat-headed appointees. They are 
all opposed.
  Let's look at the next thing that makes sense to look at--those who 
litigate before the court.
  The California bar is opposed to this. The Arizona bar is opposed to 
this. The Hawaii State Bar Association is opposed to this. Big Sky 
Country Bar from Montana is opposed to this. The State of Nevada's bar 
is opposed to this, and the State of Idaho.
  Mr. President, I would also point out that splitting the circuit, as 
proposed, will not guarantee that certain regional interests will be 
better represented. Keep in mind that is what this is really about--
regional interests.
  That is the part that bothers me about how we are going about this.
  Look, I am from the third circuit way back East--Pennsylvania, 
Delaware. So I am not telling anybody in the other part of the country 
what their business is. But it offends me that we have argued at 
least--I have not been here for the debate--in the committee based upon 
regional bias. There is not a Western Federal Constitution. There is 
not an Eastern Federal Constitution. There is not a Southern Federal 
Constitution. There is one Constitution--one.
  Another problem with this legislation that the court will face is the 
costs incurred. Dividing this circuit requires trading 
an infrastructure to support the new twelfth circuit. The Ninth Circuit 
Executive Office estimates that the initial startup cost for the 
establishment of the new twelfth circuit would amount to tens of 
millions of dollars. Operating costs of maintaining two circuits have 
been estimated to be more than $5 million per year.

  Look, I think the Senator from California has been eminently 
reasonable throughout this whole process. By the way, if anybody 
wonders whether this is not about regionalism, which is the worst thing 
we could be talking about when we talk about the Federal Constitution, 
let me remind my colleagues of a point in fact.
  No ninth circuit judge has been appointed to the court for a long 
time because those who, in fact, are suggesting that this should be 
split said, ``Unless it is split, we are not letting any judges go on 
the court.''
  Think of that now, Mr. President. Isn't that nice?
  ``You won't split the court so we can have a regional division. We 
are not letting any folks get on the court. And then we are going to 
tell you that the court is overworked. Then we are going to tell you 
the court has a backlog. Then we are going to tell you the court has a 
problem.''
  The reason, if it does, is because they have arbitrarily held up the 
appointments.
  Republican judges from the circuit have come to my office--Democratic 
judges from the circuit, Reagan appointees, Bush appointees--and said, 
``Can't you do something?'' I said, ``You are talking to the wrong guy. 
You are preaching to the choir. Go to the guys who are blocking these 
judges.''
  So, Mr. President, you can make an argument that this court is 
overworked. You can make the argument that this distribution is but 
part of the argument. The reason is a self-fulfilling prophesy. You 
don't put judges on the circuit. You create a problem.
  I can see my time is up. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  This is a bad idea. It is not the right way to go about it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for 
his excellent comment. I agree with him 100 percent. This is the wrong 
way for the wrong reason. The reasons are regional. The reasons are, if 
we do not like the decision, we don't appoint the judges.
  One-third of the ninth circuit today is vacant. I repeat, one-third 
of the judgeships on the ninth circuit today are vacant. And I do not 
believe that there is a plan to appoint another judge to the ninth 
circuit until we bow to this. What we are bowing to is something that 
has never been heard, never been studied in the 4\1/2\ years that I 
have been on the Judiciary Committee of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
July 14, 1997 statement of the Arizona bar in opposition to this split, 
a statement of the California bar in objection to this, a recent letter 
from the Governor of the State of California in objection to this, a 
July 22 letter from the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 
objection to this, a letter from the chief judge of the ninth circuit 
in objection to this, and the chief judge's letter on the unfair 
allocation of judges. I also have in my files letters objecting to the 
earlier proposals to split the circuit. These include letters of 
objection from the State Bar of Nevada, the State Bar of Montana, the 
State Bar of Hawaii, the Los Angeles County Bar, lawyers' 
representatives of the ninth circuit, and the Judicial Council.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Orrin: I understand that this week the Senate is 
     expected to consider S. 1022, the Commerce-Justice-State-
     Judiciary appropriations bill. Included in the bill is a 
     major piece of substantive legislation, the ``Ninth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1997.'' This provision 
     of the bill (section 305) would amend Title 28 of the United 
     States Code by dividing the existing Ninth Circuit into two 
     new circuits. As you well know, altering the structure of the 
     Federal judicial system is a serious matter. It is something 
     that Congress does rarely, and only after careful 
     consideration.
       It is anticipated that an amendment will be offered to 
     replace the circuit division rider with legislation to create 
     a commission to study the courts of appeals and report 
     recommendations on possible change. This legislation, H.R. 
     908, has already passed the House unanimously on a voice vote 
     on June 3, 1997. A similar bill, S. 956, was passed 
     unanimously by the Senate in the 104th Congress. This is a 
     far superior way of dealing with the problems of caseload 
     growth in the Ninth Circuit and other courts of appeals. I 
     urge your support for the amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                                State Capitol,

                                    Sacramento, CA, July 11, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Orrin: I have been closely following the renewed 
     interest in Congress over proposals to split the Ninth 
     Circuit. I understand that a new proposal, under 
     consideration by the Appropriations Committee, would split 
     the Ninth Circuit and divide California in half between the 
     resulting circuits. I am writing to register my strong 
     opposition to the passage of any such measure prior to such 
     time that an objective study is commissioned and issued 
     addressing the many, serious ramifications of such a split.
       As you may know, I have been on record in opposition to 
     previous proposals to split the Ninth Circuit on the grounds 
     that they were a form of judicial gerrymandering which sought 
     to cordon off some judges and keep others.
       However, the present proposal to split California between 
     two circuits would not only amount to judicial gerrymandering 
     but would invite forum shopping of the rankest kind. 
     California would face the unprecedented prospect of a 
     ``circuit split'' on a question of law within the same state, 
     which would invite lawyers to ``forum shop'' between the two 
     resulting halves of California on the basis of which law is 
     more favorable to their position. This would be particularly 
     frustrating for State government, where

[[Page S8060]]

     legal challenges to its actions may generally be brought in 
     any venue within the State.
       While a split of the Ninth Circuit would generate a number 
     of inconsistent rulings along the West Coast in areas such as 
     commercial law, environmental law (including standing to 
     sue), and admiralty law, a split of California would 
     exacerbate this inconsistency by subjecting Northern 
     California's cities, like San Francisco, to different 
     controlling law than Southern California's cities, like Los 
     Angeles.
       Nor would the spectacle of forum shopping between circuits 
     within California be alleviated by a mechanism similar to 
     that proposed in a 1993 House bill (H.R. 3654), which 
     suggested the creation of an ``Intercircuit California En 
     Banc Court.'' As proposed in that bill, the Intercircuit 
     California Court would permit en banc review by judges of 
     different circuits ``whose official duty stations are in the 
     State of California.'' Such an intercircuit en banc panel 
     would necessarily differ from the composition of the en banc 
     panels for each of the participating circuits. This, of 
     course, raises the specter of greater inconsistencies among 
     the circuits arising from overlapping en banc panels. As the 
     proposal would permit the Intercircuit Court to resolve only 
     intercircuit conflicts of federal law, conflicting 
     interpretations of California substantive law arising in 
     diversity cases would presumably remain unresolved. Of 
     course, these additional circuits would impose additional 
     burdens on the U.S. Supreme Court.
       Admittedly, the Ninth Circuit handles more cases than any 
     other circuit. However, statistics refute any objection that 
     the Circuit is ``too big.'' The median time for it to decide 
     appeals (14.3 months as of September 30, 1995) is less than 
     that for the Eleventh Circuit (15.1 months), and only 
     slightly higher than that for the Sixth, Seventh and District 
     of Columbia Circuits.
       The real issue underlying this debate appears to be one of 
     judicial gerrymandering, which seeks to cordon off some 
     judges in one circuit while keeping others in another because 
     of concerns, whether perceived or real, over particular 
     judges' perspectives or judicial philosophy. If this is the 
     issue, I submit that the proper means to address it is 
     through the appointment of judges who share our judicial 
     philosophy that judges should not make policy judgments, but 
     should interpret the law based on the purposes of the statute 
     as expressed in its language, and who respect the role of the 
     states in our federal system.
       I urge you to discourage your colleagues from approving any 
     proposed split of the Ninth Circuit, and particularly one 
     that splits California, until such time as a study is issued 
     that carefully examines the implications of this significant 
     issue. I would be pleased to contribute one or more 
     representatives to assist with such a study.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Pete Wilson,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                                     The State Bar


                                                of California,

                                 San Francisco, CA, July 14, 1997.
     Re State Bar of California Support for Commission to Study 
         the Federal Courts of Appeals and Opposition to Splitting 
         the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: The Board of Governors of the State 
     Bar of California strongly opposes the recent proposals to 
     split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We support the 
     establishment of a non-partisan commission to study the 
     structure and alignment of the federal courts of appeals. A 
     bill to establish such a commission, H.R. 908, unanimously 
     passed the House in June. It has been 24 years since the last 
     major study of the structure and alignment of the federal 
     courts of appeals was conducted. No proposal to restructure 
     the Ninth Circuit should be considered prior to the 
     completion of a thorough study.
       Some have argued that the size of the caseload of the Ninth 
     Circuit argues for its division; however, caseload growth is 
     an issue common to courts of appeals nationwide. Splitting 
     the Ninth Circuit, ostensibly because of its caseload, before 
     considering how to respond to growing caseloads nationwide, 
     will complicate rather than advance solutions to caseload 
     growth. Furthermore, repeated division of circuits in 
     response to growth is likely to create a proliferation of 
     balkanized circuits.
       We have heard that various proposals to split the Ninth 
     Circuit may be made in the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
     for example, to include California and Nevada in one circuit 
     and to join other states in the Continental United States in 
     another circuit, including non-contiguous Arizona; or to 
     place California in a single circuit with the island 
     territories, with all other states presently in the Ninth 
     Circuit in a separate circuit. The variety of proposals 
     indicates that there is no consensus, even among proponents, 
     as to how any split should be achieved.
       We are strongly opposed to all of these proposals to split 
     the Ninth Circuit. They represent a form of judicial 
     gerrymandering and are not based upon any study of the Ninth 
     Circuit or of the overall needs of the federal courts of 
     appeals. They violate the established principles that federal 
     judicial circuits encompass three or more states and be 
     designed to transcend parochial interests. These proposals 
     are likely to increase the problems of the federal courts of 
     appeals and make these problems more costly and difficult to 
     fix. The multiplicity of proposals that have been made, 
     without study, simply emphasize the need for a thorough study 
     of the federal appellate courts as a whole.
       For these reasons, we believe that any proposal to split 
     the Ninth Circuit, or to realign any other circuit, needs to 
     be informed by a non-partisan study of the structure and 
     alignment of the federal courts of appeal.
       I have written a similar letter to Senator Boxer, who is a 
     member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                               Thomas G. Stolpman,
     President.
                                  ____



                                         State Bar of Arizona,

                                       Phoenix, AZ, July 14, 1997.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: This letter is simply to confirm that 
     the State Bar of Arizona has repeatedly opposed any division 
     of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and supports the 
     House's proposal for a study commission.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Don Bivens,
     President-Elect.
                                  ____

                                             United States Courts,


                                        For the Ninth Circuit,

                                          Reno, NV, July 23, 1997.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: This afternoon we had a meeting of 
     the active and senior judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals, for the sole purpose of discussing the current 
     efforts underway by the Senate Appropriations Committee to 
     split the Ninth Circuit. After a thorough discussion, the 
     judges voted overwhelmingly to support the creation of a 
     study commission to study the structure of the circuits.
       Altering the structure of the federal judiciary system is 
     an extremely serious matter, something that should be done 
     rarely and only after careful, serious study and 
     consideration.
       We strongly urge the members of the Senate to support the 
     creation of a commission to conduct a thoughtful, thorough 
     and complete study of the matter.
       Our court asked me to convey to you our appreciation for 
     your continued leadership in this matter.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Procter Hug, Jr.,
     Chief Judge.
                                  ____

                                              United States Courts


                                        For the Ninth Circuit,

                                          Reno, NV, July 18, 1997.
     Hon. Harry M. Reid,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Harry: After reviewing this matter yet again, I have 
     some possible arguments for the floor of the Senate, giving 
     examples of why this is a hasty and ill-considered bill and 
     why a Commission should study such an important issue.
       1. Under the bill, the Ninth Circuit is to have fifteen 
     judges and the Twelfth Circuit is to have thirteen judges. 
     The Ninth Circuit would have a 50% greater caseload per judge 
     than the Twelfth Circuit.
States:                                                         Filings
    California....................................................4,840
    Nevada..........................................................500
    Guam.............................................................87
    Northern Marianas................................................21
                                                               ________
                                                               
      Total.......................................................5,448
                                                               ========

With 15 judges, the caseload per judge..............................363
                                                               ========

    Alaska..........................................................204
    Arizona.........................................................891
    Hawaii..........................................................204
    Idaho...........................................................141
    Montana.........................................................175
    Oregon..........................................................626
    Washington......................................................871
                                                               ________
                                                               
      Total.......................................................3,112
                                                               ========

With 13 judges, the caseload per judge..............................239
       The caseload per judge in the Ninth Circuit would be 124 
     cases per judge higher than the Twelfth Circuit, or 52% 
     greater than the Twelfth.
       2. The provision in the bill for co-equal clerks in the 
     Twelfth Circuit is completely unworkable. How can it be 
     efficiently administered in this way? Is the administration 
     of the circuit to be done in two separate co-equal 
     headquarters? Where would the Circuit Executive be located?
       3. Consider the travel time and expense of the judges. 
     Presumably, the judges from Alaska and Montana will half the 
     time travel to Phoenix, and the Arizona judges will half the 
     time travel to Seattle. Presently, the circuit headquarters 
     in San Francisco is equidistant and air routes convenient. 
     This would not be the case in the new Twelfth Circuit.
       Harry, I suggest these arguments be saved for the floor to 
     avoid changes or arguments prepared to meet them.
           Yours Sincerely,
                                                 Procter Hug, Jr.,
     Chief Judge.
                                  ____


                   Statement of Administration Policy


                      The Judiciary: Ninth Circuit

       The Administration opposes the provision in the Committee 
     bill that would reorganize

[[Page S8061]]

     the Ninth Circuit by splitting it into two separate circuits. 
     We understand that other substantive amendments to divide the 
     Ninth Circuit may be offered on the Senate Floor. The 
     Administration strongly objects to using the appropriations 
     process to legislate on this important matter. The division 
     of the Ninth Circuit is an important issue not just for the 
     bench and the bar of the affected region, but also for the 
     citizens of the Ninth Circuit. The Administration believes 
     that a much better approach would be passage of legislation, 
     H.R. 908--already passed by the House and currently pending 
     at the desk in the Senate--that would create a bipartisan 
     commission to study this difficult and complex question and 
     make recommendations to the Congress within a date certain. 
     This would allow for substantive resolution of the issue in a 
     deliberative manner, allowing all affected parties to voice 
     their views.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have a couple of minutes left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Before getting to a vote on this issue, just let me make 
this point.
  Were this a judicial proceeding, there is something called judicial 
notice. That is like water runs downhill and the Sun comes up in the 
East. I think the Court would take judicial notice of the fact the 
ninth circuit does not work; it is too big; it has too many people for 
one circuit to manage; it has too many judges to work effectively; it 
has too large a geographic region. This is an attempt to address that 
issue. It is a very important issue to address. It is an affordable 
issue to address. I hope my colleagues will vote down this amendment.
  Have the yeas and nays been asked for on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator from California wish to ask for the yeas 
and nays?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 986) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, is it in order to send an amendment to 
the desk at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside amendment 
979? Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 989

 (Purpose: To Strike the Provisions Dealing With the Withdrawal of the 
        United States From Certain International Organizations)

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

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 989.
       On page 124, beginning on line 5, strike all through page 
     125, line 2.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to direct my colleagues' 
attention to section 408 of this bill, on pages 124 and 125. I am 
absolutely stunned to find this language in this legislation, because 
it provides for our withdrawal from the United Nations.
  What it says, if I understand it correctly, is that if the 
appropriation does not come up to the level of the U.N. assessment, 
then the United States shall withdraw from an international 
organization, but I assume it is primarily directed at the U.N.
  Let me just read a couple of paragraphs to my colleagues.

       The United States shall withdraw from an international 
     organization under this section in accordance with the 
     procedures identified for withdrawal in the treaty, pact, 
     agreement, charter, or other instrument of that organization 
     which establishes such procedures.
       Unless otherwise provided for in the instrument concerned, 
     a withdrawal under this section shall be completed by the end 
     of the fiscal year in which the withdrawal is required.

  This is a small section located in the latter part of this 
legislation. As you read through this bill, all of a sudden, you come 
across the provision. If we are going to withdraw from the U.N., we 
ought to have a full-scale debate. This is not a minor decision. There 
are some people in the country who would like to do that, but if we are 
going to undertake to do so we ought to have a full scale debate.
  What this section says as it starts off is:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United 
     States shall withdraw from an international organization if 
     the President determines that the amount appropriated or 
     otherwise available for a fiscal year . . . is less than the 
     actual amount of such contributions. . . .

  In other words, the assessments. So, if we do not appropriate the 
full assessment, as I understand this section, the President has to 
begin withdrawal procedures.
  There are many years when we have not met the assessment. In fact, we 
continue to run arrearages. We just passed legislation here that had 
certain conditions for paying our U.N. dues, that withheld certain 
amounts, required certifications, and so forth and so on.
  I don't know where this provision came from but it is a backdoor way 
of compelling our withdrawal from the United Nations.
  The amendment that was sent to the desk would strike this section 
from the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. We should 
not be talking about withdrawal from international organizations. We 
are the world's leading power. We essentially use these international 
organizations to serve our interests. Now we come to this section, 
which is sort of hidden away. The upshot of it would be to, in effect, 
lead us to begin withdrawal procedures from the United Nations.
  I don't think we even ought to have any references to withdrawal. 
Certainly the way this provision is written, the bill is going to force 
us out of the U.N.
  I hope the committee, upon reflection, would agree to drop the 
section from the bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield for a second?
  Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. He is just yielding to me. But I absolutely agree with 
you. I absolutely agree with you. Let me tell you, during this last 
cold war time, I had a lot to do with the ILO when I was chairman of 
the Labor Committee and ranking member there, and ever since, when our 
tripartite organization--Government, labor and business--saved this 
country and countries all around this world from the tyranny of 
totalitarianism, right at the ILO.

[[Page S8062]]

  I can remember one trip I made over there because Irving Brown called 
me. He was the head of our delegation. He was the International Vice 
President of the AFL-CIO, and in my opinion the strongest anti-
Communist in the world at the time. He stopped the Communists from 
taking over the French docks. He went into Paris before the end of the 
Second World War--one of the most heroic figures I ever met in my life. 
And he led our delegation with the full support of labor, business, and 
Government, year after year. He died here a few years ago. I went to 
his memorial service here.
  But I know what the ILO has meant to this country and what it has 
meant to free trade unionism around the world and what it has meant to 
freedom.
  I have to tell you, if we have this provision continue in this bill, 
since all three of these organizations, the WHO, the ILO, and the 
agricultural organization, we are behind in payments to them, it would 
mean it would have to come down to choosing one of them that they would 
delete. I can tell you right now, the one, probably the weakest that 
would be deleted, would be the ILO. I have to tell you, that preserves 
free trade unionism around the world, it protects freedom around the 
world, and, I have to tell you, quells disruptions and problems all 
over the world. It helps us all over the world to spread democracy.

  I don't want to see that happen, and I think the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland has brought up a very, very good point here. I 
call my colleagues' attention to it. I am grateful he has yielded to me 
for these few remarks. I hope they have been helpful to my colleagues 
on both sides, but I have been there, I know how important this is. I 
believe this is not the thing to do, to have that particular language 
left in there as it is. So I support my colleague from Maryland.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator from Maryland yield for a brief comment?
  Mr. President, this is the second time we have addressed this issue 
in the last several weeks. A similar provision was in the State 
Department authorization bill that we dealt with. We raised the issue 
then, and the Senator moved to strike a similar provision, a withdrawal 
provision. It was accepted by a voice vote. This bill went on to pass 
the Senate 90 to 5, I believe.
  I am surprised this issue has surfaced again. Not only does section 
408 depart from the State Department authorization bill, but it is bad 
policy; it is just simply bad policy.
  I hope my friends, the managers of this bill, will consider the fact 
that we have been through this once already and maybe allow us just to 
have a voice vote and move on. We have enough to fight over in this 
bill.
  I have much more to say on this, but, as the old joke goes, everybody 
has already said it, so I am not going to repeat it. The Senator from 
Maryland is absolutely right; it is a repeat of what we did.
  I thank the Senator for yielding to me, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. GREGG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue 
calling the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I seek recognition so we can announce there 
will be no further rollcall votes tonight. There will be at least one 
vote tomorrow. And I believe that we can say there will be one vote 
tomorrow. It will be an important vote. We expect that that vote will 
be either on the tuna-dolphin issue or, more than likely, under the 
agreement we are going to propound, it would be on the global warming 
issue.
  So there would be a vote tomorrow. A time would have to yet be 
determined exactly what time that would be, but probably not before 10 
o'clock in the morning. And then we hope to work out some 
understandings with regard to State, Justice, Commerce. And then we 
would probably not have final votes on that until next Tuesday, I 
believe it would be.
  So that is the point I wanted to announce. There will be at least one 
vote tomorrow, and no further rollcall votes tonight. We will make an 
announcement with regard to Monday later on, in a few minutes, or 
tomorrow, about the situation on Monday.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the leader's intention, if there is no agreement on 
tuna-dolphin, that there will be a cloture vote tomorrow morning on 
tuna-dolphin that he had previously anticipated?
  Mr. LOTT. Unless there is an agreement, there will be a cloture vote 
on tuna-dolphin, but we are working on an agreement where it may not be 
in the morning. But we will have one in short order. We are trying to 
work through all the different players and make sure everybody has been 
consulted. That is why we are not asking for the UC right now.
  I think I should go ahead and say to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, it would be our intent, because of requests 
of a number of Senators, and because of the cooperation we have 
received, that we would not have any recorded votes on Monday. But we 
are trying to also clear an agreement that the Democratic leader 
indicated he would like to approve with us to take up the 
Transportation appropriations bill some time during the day on Monday, 
but it would not lead to recorded votes. The next recorded vote would 
be tomorrow, and then Tuesday morning and Wednesday morning under the 
agreements we are working. But we have not cleared them with everybody 
at this point.
  With that, at this time, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kerry pertaining to the introduction of S. 1067 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I can engage in a brief colloquy with 
the chairman of the subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, I don't think it is 
necessary to set the amendment aside in order to have a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It is not necessary.
  Ms. COLLINS. I stand corrected.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I object to the request, but it doesn't 
preclude the distinguished Senator from having her colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from Maine 
is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for such time as I may consume for a brief colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           NWS REORGANIZATION

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, 
regarding the National Weather Service's ongoing top-to-bottom review 
of its operations and structure.
  I am taking this opportunity today to express my hope and belief that 
this review process will conclude that the Weather Service Office in 
Caribou, ME, should be fully upgraded to a Weather Forecasting Office. 
I just want to comment very briefly, Mr. President, on a few of the 
reasons why the Caribou Weather Service Office should be upgraded.
  In general, it is the Weather Service's policy that weather 
forecasting

[[Page S8063]]

offices should cover roughly 17,000 square miles. Right now, the 
Weather Forecasting Office in Gray, ME--which is more than 230 miles 
from Caribou--is attempting to provide services for roughly 63,000 
square miles, an area more than three times larger than the norm. Given 
the huge area involved, it is extremely difficult for the small staff 
of a Weather Service Office to provide the services necessary to ensure 
public safety.
  For example, the Weather Service Office currently has only one 
electrical technician who must service equipment in Frenchville, 
Caribou, Houlton, and as far south as Millinocket, in Penobscot County. 
This is an enormous workload for just one employee, particularly in 
light of the possibility that repairs may be needed at the same time at 
different locations far away from each other.
  Accurate and timely weather reports are essential to Aroostook 
County, the largest county in Maine, for two reasons: one involving 
public safety, the other an economic concern.
  Mr. President, northern Maine experiences more than its fair share of 
severe weather, including blizzards in the winter months. Many of my 
colleagues have probably heard weather reports in which my hometown of 
Caribou has recorded the lowest temperature in the Continental United 
States. Accurate and timely weather reports are essential for public 
safety.
  The second reason for upgrading the Weather Service Office centers on 
the nature of the economy in the county. Natural resource-based 
industries such as agriculture, logging, and tourism are the mainstay 
of the county's economy. Our potato farmers, for example, must have 
quality weather forecasts and reports in order to know best when to 
plant and harvest their crops.
  For these public safety and economic reasons, I am convinced that 
upgrading the Weather Service Office in Caribou is a necessary action 
for the National Weather Service to undertake, and I hope that the 
Appropriations Committee will act favorably on upcoming funding 
requests.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor so that my distinguished New England 
neighbor and colleague, Senator Gregg, may respond to my concerns.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Collins, and the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, Senator Gregg, today to discuss an issue of utmost 
importance to Aroostook County, the Caribou Weather Service Office.
  The bill before us requires the National Weather Service [NWS] to 
consult with the subcommittee before making any reprogramming requests 
in relation to the top-to-bottom review that is currently underway. As 
part of their review, NWS will consider whether the Caribou Weather 
Service Office should be upgraded to a weather forecasting office.
  Under the National Weather Service's modernization plan, a weather 
forecasting office will have Doppler radar. The Doppler radar would 
give Caribou the ability to forecast warnings for sudden and severe 
changing weather patterns so that the communities the weather station 
serves will be able to respond quickly. At the present time, the 
nearest Doppler radar is in Gray, ME, more than 200 miles away. This is 
too far away to be of immediate help to Aroostook County.
  Aroostook County is one of the largest counties in the United 
States--the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined--and its 
economy is dominated by agriculture, trucking, and forest products 
industries, all of which rely heavily on timely and accurate weather 
information. The Caribou station provides vital information on a daily 
basis to northern Maine communities that must deal with a wide range of 
weather patterns from bitter cold and snow to severe thunderstorms and 
flooding. An upgrade from a weather service office to a weather 
forecasting office would improve the weather forecasting abilities of 
the Caribou station, thereby improving the ability of the affected 
towns to react to sudden and severe weather changes.
  Once the NWS has completed its review, I look forward to working with 
Chairman Gregg and the subcommittee to ensure that the recommended 
changes are funded in an expeditious manner.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Maine raising 
this very significant issue to the folks of Northeastern Maine. Those 
of us who have been to Caribou understand that it is the coldest place 
in America, consistently, and recognize that the issue of weather and 
predictability of weather is very important. Also, I know how important 
upgrading the Caribou Weather Service Office into a Weather Forecasting 
Office is for the people of Aroostook County. It is a major issue, and 
I can understand how strongly my friend and colleague from Maine feels 
about this matter.
  The Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, has made a very persuasive 
case for why the Weather Service Office in Caribou, ME, should be 
upgraded into a Weather Forecasting Office. We must always work to 
ensure public safety, and given the enormous land area, a Weather 
Forecasting Office would be a tremendous benefit for the people of 
northern Maine.
  You have my assurance, Senator Collins, that when the subcommittee 
receives the National Weather Service report and recommendations on a 
reorganization plan, the subcommittee will work closely with you 
regarding the Caribou, ME, Weather Service Office.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator very much for his assistance.
  Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                                Slamming

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution which is included, I believe, in the 
managers' amendment, with the concurrence of the Senator from New 
Hampshire and the Senator from South Carolina.
  The thrust of my amendment is to confront an issue which is growing--
the issue of slamming--where individuals who have signed up for long 
distance telephone service have their service changed illegally. This 
is a growing problem, a problem that we must confront. It is a problem 
that--in fact, as I considered it, I also contemplated the construction 
of an amendment to this appropriations bill that would have dealt with 
the problem by mandating better proof that a customer has actually 
changed service, including criminal penalties for slamming, and other 
deterrences.
  As I spoke with my colleagues and law enforcement officials, I came 
to realize, through many different viewpoints, that an amendment at 
this time would delay the appropriations process. So rather than 
introducing an amendment, I have proposed a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution which, again, I believe has been accepted and will be 
maintained within the managers' agreement.
  Before going forward, I commend and thank the chairman, Senator 
Gregg, and the ranking member, Mr. Hollings, and also Chairman McCain 
and Chairman Burns for their generous assistance in this endeavor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield. 
The Senator from Rhode Island has done a valuable service to the Senate 
in bringing this to our attention. The FCC has just promulgated a rule 
relative to slamming just this past week. This sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution is consistent with it, in the sense that it would require 
the mandating of the evidence itself, civil fines, and a civil right of 
action. I think it really emphasizes the concern that all of us have 
had in the communications field of this particular malpractice. I hope 
we can help, with this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, emphasize the 
need to expedite the rulemaking on the part of the FCC. I thank the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and I join in his resolution.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire, 
without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I support the efforts of the Senator from 
Rhode Island to put a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in this bill 
relative to this very important issue. His sense of the Senate tracks 
the FEC regulation. I think it is very appropriate that he has raised 
the visibility of this issue, and the sense of the Senate will be 
included in the managers' amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I thank the Senator from 
New Hampshire for his support. I would

[[Page S8064]]

like to just briefly describe the problem and also the ongoing 
discussion with the FCC and also here within Congress.
  First, as both my colleagues have indicated, this is an alarming and 
growing problem. The Federal Communications Commission is dealing with 
the problem now. They will shortly propose a rule that will take away 
the financial incentive for some of these renegade companies who 
essentially illegally change service. Surprisingly, today under FCC 
rules, a renegade company can, in fact, illegally switch a customer and 
still get the benefits of that month or of several months of charges. 
The FCC has proposed to change this.
  This sense-of-the-Senate resolution supports that proposed rule 
change and the other activities the FCC is contemplating. One of the 
reasons we are here today is that, under the present rules of the FCC, 
telephone companies must get either a verbal or written response in 
terms of a formal request to change. The problem with respect to a 
written consent is that, many times, they are hidden in sweepstakes 
promotions, giveaways and, in fact, the nature of the written response 
is unknown to the consumer. Once again, the FCC is proposing to change 
this new rule. I support that change and encourage them to go forward.
  The phone company can also rely upon the verbal assent of a consumer, 
but there are problems with this verbal assent, also. Some of the 
problems we have seen with telemarketers are the fact that they will 
deceive the consumer about identity or the nature of the service, or 
they will obtain the consent of a child, or stranger in the household, 
or disregard the consumer's decline to switch the service, or flatout 
not even bother to get the verbal assent and claim that they do in 
retrospect. The problem with this verbal authorization is proof. Again, 
the FCC has taken some steps in this regard. They are proposing to 
eliminate what is an option today, where someone presumably could 
consent over the phone and then receive a package later from the 
company requiring that consumer to send a card in to deny the service 
change. The FCC once again is trying to eliminate that procedure, also.

  These are all positive steps. I encourage, and this resolution 
encourages, the FCC to pursue those steps.
  This is a major problem for consumers in the United States. Fifty 
million people each year switch their phone service. One million of 
those switches are likely to be fraudulent. One regional carrier now 
estimates that 1 in 20 of the switches in their system are fraudulent 
switches. This problem has tripled since 1994. It is now the FCC's No. 
1 consumer complaint. Therefore, this problem is something that we 
should deal with, and deal with decisively.
  In my own home State of Rhode Island, there are abundant examples of 
consumers who have been disadvantaged by this illegal switching. 
Indeed, the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission has noted this 
complaint as the No. 1 complaint they receive with respect to telephone 
services. For example, a small businessperson in Newport, RI, had his 
800 number switched, and rather than an 800 number, the only people who 
could call the business were residents of Alaska.
  In Smithfield, RI, a family had their phone service illegally 
switched. They protested, but before they could rectify the problem, 
their phone service was terminated because they refused to pay the bill 
for the illegal company that switched them.
  These are problems that have to be addressed, and I hope are being 
addressed today by the FCC, and perhaps ultimately our legislation in 
this body.
  What I hope we could do would be to focus more resources of the FCC 
on this problem. In 1996, the FCC received 16,000 complaints about 
slamming, but they only were able to successfully prosecute and induce 
judgment against 15 companies. They don't have the resources. They need 
those resources. Indeed, I worry that law enforcement agencies around 
the country not only lack resources but lack, ultimately, the proof 
that a switch has been made illegally. Law enforcement officials in 
certain States, such as Connecticut, Wisconsin, California, Texas, and 
Illinois, have been successful, but they need additional support.
  Indeed, one of the major elements of the legislation I was 
contemplating was the requirement not only of written proof but, also, 
in the case that an oral or verbal consent was given, some type of 
recording of assent so that law enforcement authorities could verify 
decisively whether or not the appropriate assent had been made. It is 
necessary for us to balance the needs for a flexible system by which 
consumers can make choices and change their service to one that 
protects their right to ensure that it is their choice and not the 
result of fraudulent or manipulative practices by unscrupulous 
companies. I believe we can do that.
  I believe we have taken a step forward today with this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution to start on that path. I look forward to offering 
independent legislation which I think will assist the current effort of 
the FCC to resolve this grave problem that is growing each day.
  Once again, I thank my colleagues, Senator Gregg, Senator Hollings, 
Senator McCain, and Senator Burns, for their work and for their effort 
on this. Others are interested. I know Senator Campbell and Senator 
Durbin are also interested in this problem.
  We have an opportunity today to send a strong message to the FCC to 
move forward and also to continue to contemplate and deliberate about 
legislation which will assist in their efforts and end this scandalous 
problem, the No. 1 consumer complaint today with respect to 
telecommunications slamming.
  I thank my colleagues. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I had a discussion with the Senator from 
North Dakota. I am going to be very, very brief, with his indulgence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily 
lay aside the amendment for the purpose of introducing my amendment, 
and the moment my introduction is completed that the pending amendment 
will return and be the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 992

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the Community Policing to Combat 
                       Domestic Violence Program)

  Mr. KERRY. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), for himself, 
     Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Johnson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 992.

  Mr. KERRY. 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 29, line 18, insert ``That of the amount made 
     available for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants under this 
     heading, $47,000,000 shall be for the Community Policing to 
     Combat Domestic Violence Program established pursuant to 
     section 1701(d) of part Q of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968: Provided further,'' after 
     ``Provided,''.

                       stop domestic violence now

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment continues the successful 
COPS ``Community Policing to Combat Domestic Violence'' Program. Police 
departments currently use these COPS funds for domestic violence 
training and support. This amendment would allow local law enforcement 
agencies to renew their grant funding so they can continue to employ 
innovative community policing strategies to combat domestic violence.
  Mr. President, domestic violence is a very serious national problem. 
Almost four million American women were physically abused by their 
husbands or boyfriends in the last year alone. A woman is physically 
abused every 9 seconds in the United States. Women are victims of 
domestic violence more often than they are victims of burglary, 
muggings, and all other physical crimes combined. In fact, 42 percent 
of women who are murdered are killed by their intimate male partners. 
In Massachusetts, 33 women were killed in domestic related cases in 
1995. This

[[Page S8065]]

amendment is necessary to fight this epidemic of domestic violence.
  Mr. President, this problem of domestic violence affects all classes 
and all races. More than one in three Americans have witnessed an 
incident of domestic violence according to a recent nationwide survey 
released by the Family Violence Prevention Fund. Mr. President, 
battering accounts for one-fifth of all medical visits by women and 
one-third of all emergency room visits by women in the U.S. each year. 
As Dartmouth, MA, Police Chief Stephen Soares said recently, domestic 
violence ``goes from the lowest economic planes to the highest in terms 
of professional persons. There isn't a line drawn in terms of 
profession or money.''
  Domestic violence hurts women and hurts our economy. The Bureau of 
National Affairs estimates that domestic violence costs employers 
between $3 billion and $5 billion each year in lost work time and 
decreased productivity. In a recent survey of senior business 
executives, 49 percent said that domestic violence has a harmful effect 
on their company's productivity. Forty-seven percent said domestic 
violence negatively affects attendance and 44 percent said domestic 
violence increases health care costs.
  Mr. President, domestic violence also has tragic effects on children. 
Children who witness the violence often do poorly in school, repeat the 
pattern of either victim or abuser as adults, and are more prone to 
have a variety of emotional problems.
  According to Linda Aguiar, the head of ``Our Sisters' Place'' in Fall 
River, Massachusetts, ``One child that was at the shelter, we found out 
he had taken knives from the kitchen and hid them in the bedroom. He 
did this because he was afraid his father would come. He thought his 
father would come and put a ladder to the window.''
  To attempt to deal with these problems, Congress in the 1994 Crime 
Act provided that up to 15 percent of the funding for the COPS program 
could be made available for innovative community policing activities. A 
small part of that money, $47 million, was made available to police 
departments for domestic violence training and support. I would like to 
read excerpts from a letter I received from the Chief of Police of 
Chelmsford, MA, about the COPS Domestic Violence program. He said, ``It 
has come to my attention that the federal grant entitled `Community 
Oriented Policing Services Combating Domestic Violence' '' (COPS) has 
not been approved--As you know, domestic violence is a serious law 
enforcement and societal problem that we are just beginning to face. 
Every year, millions of women are abused and hundreds are murdered by 
members of their own family. It's time that society began viewing these 
atrocities as a crime. We must put forward the necessary attention and 
funding to solve this problem. The COPS grant does exactly that. It 
provides advocacy, training, and research toward ending this problem. 
Without this funding victims of domestic abuse and police officers will 
have nowhere to turn for support, education, resources and training.''
  Mr. President, the COPS Domestic Violence Program has been a success. 
In Massachusetts, police departments have used the money to fund many 
anti-domestic violence activities:
  The Gardner Police Department and a local battered women's resource 
center were able to establish school-based support groups for children 
affected by violence in their homes. More than 250 children ages 5-10 
have benefited from this program.
  In Somerville, nearly 100 city police officers and an equal number of 
representatives of local non-profit service agencies received anti-
domestic violence training. As a result, a young woman who appeared in 
the Emergency Room seeking assistance for domestic violence was 
referred to a nurse supervisor who helped her get a restraining order, 
safety planning, and other support.
  Officers in the Domestic Violence Unit of the Fall River Police 
Department, in coordination with a local battered women's and 
children's shelter, have been able to conduct personal follow-up in 
more than 1,100 incidents of domestic violence since September of 1996.
  Mr. President, before these funds were available, many local law 
enforcement agencies lacked the resources to provide anti-domestic 
violence training and support. In 1995 prior to the awarding of the 
COPS domestic violence grant, police in Gardner, MA were called to 
intervene in a dispute involving domestic abuse. Due to the lack of 
cooperation from the victim, officers did not have sufficient evidence 
to arrest her boyfriend, but instead were only able to escort him off 
the property. Two hours after the incident, the victim's boyfriend 
returned to the property and set it afire, and the woman was killed by 
asphyxiation. Subsequent to this crime the suspect was arrested, 
convicted of the crime with which he was charged and sentenced to time 
in prison. This incident demonstrated the need for a victim's advocate 
employed by the police department who might have been able to convince 
the woman of her need for help and then intervene on her behalf. Due to 
the COPS Domestic Violence grants, the Gardner Police Department now 
has the resources to more successfully combat domestic violence.

  When the Department of Justice announced these Community Policing to 
Combat Domestic Violence grants on June 1, 1996, police departments 
were promised 1 year of funding with the ability to receive two 
additional years of funding. Unfortunately, these successful Domestic 
Violence programs will be denied the additional 2 years of funding 
because of a little-noticed change, included in the appropriations bill 
report language, which no longer allows up to 15 percent of COPS funds 
to be used for innovative community policing activities such as anti-
domestic violence training and support for local law enforcement 
agencies.
  Our amendment earmarks $47 million of the $503 million provided by 
the Commerce/State/Justice Appropriation bill for the Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) to renew funding of grants made under 
the COPS Domestic Violence Program. It is appropriate that this money 
be earmarked for this purpose because the Local Law Enforcement Block 
Grant Program was designed to provide funds to local governments to 
fund crime reduction and public safety improvements broadly defined. 
Additionally, the LLEBG already contains several earmarks in the C/S/J 
Appropriations bill: $2.4 million for discretionary grants for local 
law enforcement to form specialized cyber units to prevent child sexual 
exploitation, and $20 million for the Boys and Girls Clubs.
  Some will argue that this appropriations bill increases funding for 
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and that therefore no additional 
funds are needed to confront domestic violence. However, that is 
incorrect for three reasons. First, the increase in funding for the 
Violence Against Women Act is only $15 million, far less than the $47 
million needed to renew the COPS Domestic Violence grants. Second, only 
25 percent of the VAWA money goes to police departments--most of the 
rest goes to prosecution and direct victims services. Third, most of 
the VAWA money for police departments goes to buy equipment, not for 
training and support.
  Mr. President, this funding is necessary to help police departments 
to deal with the epidemic of domestic violence. I would like to thank 
Senators Dodd, Lautenberg, and Johnson for joining me in proposing this 
important amendment and urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of my 
colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry]. This amendment 
will restore the COPS antidomestic violence grants created by the 
Violence Against Women Act--a program of vital importance that funds 
local police and community initiatives to combat domestic violence.
  Domestic violence is a serious scourge on our society. Once every 9 
seconds, a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend, according to 
FBI crime statistics. Four women are killed each day at the hands of 
their domestic attackers, according to the National Clearinghouse for 
the Defense of Battered Women. And 16 people were killed by family 
violence in Connecticut between September 1995 and September 1996. That 
is totally unacceptable.
  Mr. President, for quite some time I have been extremely concerned 
that

[[Page S8066]]

antidomestic violence programs currently funded through domestic 
violence COPS grants will no longer have a source of funding as the 
COPS grants for this purpose are eliminated.
  For too long before Congress enacted the 1994 crime law and Violence 
Against Women Act, domestic violence was considered a private matter--
something to be dealt with inside the home, and outside of public view 
and public policy. The Violence Against Women Act represented a 
consensus that government and our communities should work together to 
prevent and stop domestic violence, and that it should be one of our 
highest priorities.
  In Connecticut, many communities were able to rise to that challenge 
when they received anti-domestic violence grants under the COPS 
program. More than ten Connecticut cites and towns have used these 
grants to establish law enforcement infrastructures to support a 
diverse range of anti-domestic violence programs, each specifically 
tailored to the needs of that local community. I recently had the 
opportunity to visit with two police chiefs who are using anti-domestic 
violence COPS grants to run domestic violence prevention and 
intervention programs in Bridgeport, CT, and Groton, CT. They have 
developed different programs that make use of a wide range of resources 
to fight domestic violence, utilizing police officers, involving 
victims' shelters and services, incorporating counseling for both 
victims and batterers, and aggressively pursuing prosecution of 
batterers.
  Programs like these send a message from our communities to victims 
and batterers alike. These programs say that domestic violence has no 
place in Connecticut or anywhere in our country. These programs say 
that if you are a batterer, we will stop you, we will catch you, and we 
will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. And I am told by 
police chiefs throughout Connecticut that that is why these programs, 
and the funds that make them possible, have truly improved their 
ability to combat domestic violence. Domestic violence is preventable, 
if we provide the funding for initiatives to stop it.
  Now, however, the elimination of antidomestic violence COPS grants 
threatens to force an untimely end to successful programs like those in 
Connecticut. Law enforcement officials would be hindered in their 
effort to prevent domestic violence and catch and punish perpetrators, 
and victims of domestic violence would continue to suffer. Let's not 
abandon police chiefs when they've just begun to win the battle against 
domestic violence. Let's not turn our backs on the victims who need our 
help.
  I wrote to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriators to ask them to 
maintain the funding for these important programs, and I am pleased 
today to cosponsor the amendment that would do just that. Hundreds of 
police chiefs and countless victims across the country are counting on 
us to do no less.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his amendment, and I join 
him in urging my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
finishing expeditiously and for his help on a number of issues 
throughout the day as we try to get an agreement on how we can proceed 
for the remainder of the day, and when we can get votes tomorrow and 
next week.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only 
remaining first-degree amendments in order to S. 1022, and they be 
subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
  Mr. President, I will submit the list since there are several of 
them. But everybody has been consulted on this list. The Democratic 
leadership is aware of it as well as the Members on this side.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


            democratic amendments to commerce-state-justice

       Baucus, EDA.
       Biden, COPS.
       Biden, trust fund.
       Bingaman, registration of nonprofits.
       Bumpers, OMB.
       Byrd, anti-alcohol.
       Conrad, relevant.
       Daschle, law enforcement.
       Dorgan, sense of Senate--Univ. Service Fund.
       Dorgan, NII grants.
       Graham, public safety officers.
       Harkin, funding for globe.
       Inouye, Ninth circuit--northern territories.
       Kennedy/Leahy, capital murder.
       Kerry, COPS.
       Lautenberg, PTO.
       Reed, SoS telecom slamming.
       Robb, public safety grants.
       Sarbanes, Sec. 408 pending No. 989.
       Wellstone, Legal Services Corp.
       Wellstone, Legal Services Corp.
       Harkin, private relief.
       Hollings, managers.
       Hollings, managers.


             republic amendments to state-justice-commerce

       Domenici, court appointed attorney's fees.
       Hatch, DOJ LEG. AFFAIRS.
       Burns, Mansfield fellowships.
       McCain, INS inoculations.
       Stevens, Cable laying.
       Hatch, Limitation of funds for Under Secretary of Commerce.
       DeWine, Visas.
       Helms, Technical.
       Warner, Terrorism.
       Coverdell, DNA testing/sex offenders.
       Bond, small business.
       Warner, patent trademark.
       Kyl, masters.
       Abraham, INS fingerprinting.
       Stevens, womens World Cup.
       Coats, gambling impact.
       McCain, relevant.
       McCain, relevant.
       Burns, EDA.
       Hatch, antitrust provisions.
       Gregg, relevant.
       Hatch, local law enforcement.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that all 
amendments must be offered and debated tonight and any votes ordered 
with respect to S. 1022 be postponed to occur beginning on 9:30 a.m. on 
Tuesday, July 29, with 2 minutes for debate equally divided before each 
vote, and following the disposition of amendments, S. 1022 be advanced 
to third reading and a passage vote occur, all without further action 
or debate.
  I have more to this request, but I want to emphasize what that means. 
We will complete all of the amendments tonight. The votes on those 
amendments and final passage will occur next Tuesday beginning the 
9:30.
  I further ask that if the Senate has not received the House companion 
bill at the time of passage of S. 1022, the bill remain at the desk; 
and I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives the 
House companion bill, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration 
and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1022, 
as amended, be inserted, the House bill then be read a third time and 
passed and the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference 
with the House and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees 
and that S. 1022 be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in the 
discussions with the chairman of the subcommittee, as I understand it, 
the amendment that is pending at the desk will be adopted this evening.
  Mr. LOTT. That is my understanding Mr. President.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask that at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday the Senate 
resume the State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill and there be 30 
minutes remaining, equally divided, for debate on each of the two 
amendments to be offered by Senator Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask that it be in order, if necessary, for each 
leader to offer one relevant amendment on Tuesday prior to the 
scheduled 9:30 votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. With regard to the tuna-dolphin issue, I ask unanimous 
consent that, at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, July 25, the Senate resume the 
motion to proceed to S. 39, the tuna-dolphin bill, and there be 30 
minutes equally divided between Senator McCain, or his designee, and 
Senator Boxer. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use 
or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to the vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 39.

[[Page S8067]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask that if an agreement can be 
reached with respect to S. 39--and it appears there may be--it be in 
order for the majority leader to vitiate the cloture vote, the Senate 
to then immediately proceed to S. 39, that the managers' amendment be 
in order, and the amendment and bill be limited to a total of 30 
minutes equally divided, and following the disposition of the amendment 
the bill be advanced to third reading, and passage occur, all without 
further action or debate.
  I think I should clarify this and put it in common language.
  If an agreement is worked out, we will vitiate the cloture vote. I 
would like to modify that agreement to say that, if an agreement is 
reached, we will vitiate; then we will take that issue up next week 
with 30 minutes of debate and a vote next week, unless a voice vote 
would be agreed to for tomorrow or next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. With regard to Wednesday of next week, I ask unanimous 
consent that at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 30, the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of Senate Resolution 98. I further ask unanimous 
consent that there be 2 hours of debate on the resolution equally 
divided between the chairman and the ranking member, or their 
designees, with the following amendments in order to this bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I realize it gets a little confusing on how 
we are lining these up. But I think it is being helpful to all 
Senators. I think it is allowing us to complete the debate and get 
votes and move important legislation forward in the best way possible.
  So the way we are getting it racked up, so to speak, I think is good 
for the Senate, and we are trying to do the right thing.
  So I would like to modify that earlier request to this extent:
  That we come in in the morning and go immediately at 9:30 to the 
global-warming bill. That bill is Senate Resolution 98. I ask consent 
that there be 2 hours of debate on the resolution equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking member or their designees with the 
only amendments in order to be the following: Kerry amendment adding 
specific negotiating positions; Senator Byrd's amendment, relevant.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the 
above-mentioned amendments and the expiration or yielding back of time 
for debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on the resolution with no 
intervening action or debate, and, if the resolution is agreed to, the 
preamble then be agreed to, which means that the final vote on global 
warming would occur around 11:30 tomorrow morning.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not 
object--I simply ask the majority leader if he would modify that 
further, per our agreement, that they would be first-degree amendments 
with no second-degree amendments.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask to further modify my unanimous-consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Then the modification of what we had earlier agreed to is 
that after that vote on Senate Resolution 98, we would then have the 
vote on the cloture motion on tuna-dolphin unless an agreement is 
worked out, at which point we would vitiate that cloture vote, and we 
would get a subsequent time agreement of 30 minutes and a voice vote, 
or a recorded vote, on that issue next week.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. The leader did not say exactly what time the cloture vote 
would take place.
  Mr. LOTT. The cloture vote would then take place, after the global 
warming vote, I presume about 11:45, 11:50, something of that nature.
  Mrs. BOXER. Could we say by 12 o'clock?
  Mr. LOTT. It certainly would be by 12 o'clock.
  Mrs. BOXER. That would be very helpful. One more point. If there 
should be a recorded vote, which many of us do not anticipate, on the 
dolphin-tuna compromise, if there is one, could we reserve just a 
couple of minutes on either side just to talk before that vote, on next 
week, just 2 minutes?
  Mr. LOTT. Before the vote next week.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. Sure. I would hate to enter into a time agreement on a 
specific time now but we would have a vote at an agreed to time and we 
would have some time to explain it. I think it is appropriate.
  Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding the majority leader in the prior 
order already requested 30 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. I had indicated 30 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is very acceptable. Thank you very much. And I 
wanted to thank the Senator from Arizona as well for helping resolve 
this procedure.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their cooperation. 
Let us keep going then. I think we are making good progress.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock on Monday, July 28, the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of the Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, any votes ordered with 
respect to the Transportation appropriations bill will be postponed to 
occur on Wednesday morning immediately following the global warming 
resolution vote.
  We have changed that now. The Transportation appropriations bill 
would occur on Wednesday morning.
  Mr. FORD. I liked the first one better.
  Mr. LOTT. Therefore, no votes will occur during the session on 
Monday, July 28.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor at this point and in a few 
minutes we will recap everything we agreed to in those unanimous-
consent agreements so that they will be clear and understandable. We 
will do that before we go out tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 989

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, is the Sarbanes amendment now the 
pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sarbanes amendment is now the pending 
business.
  Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Moynihan, Hatch, 
Jeffords, Kerry, Biden, and Leahy be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. I hope we could move to adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I hope the Senator would ask for adoption.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The question is on the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 989) was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 993

    (Purpose: To make an Amendment Relating to the Health Insurance 
              Benefits of Certain Public Safety Officers)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, at the completion of these brief remarks, 
I will send an amendment to the desk.
  Mr. President, last year in consideration of this same appropriations 
bill, the Senate and the House adopted and the President signed into 
law what is known as the Alu-O'Hara bill. This is legislation which was 
the result of a tragic circumstance in which two law enforcement 
officers called to a hostage-taking scene were seriously

[[Page S8068]]

burned when the hostage taker set on fire the structure in which the 
hostages were being held. These two law enforcement officers were 
subsequently discharged from the law enforcement agency because of 
their severe injuries, and in the course of their discharge they lost 
their insurance coverage. So now they were two heroes out of work, 
lifetime injuries and without health insurance.
  This Alu-O'Hara bill, which we adopted last year, provided that law 
enforcement agencies would provide to any public service officer ``who 
retires or is separated from service due to an injury suffered as the 
direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in line of 
duty while responding to an emergency situation or in hot pursuit with 
the same or better level of health insurance benefits that are 
otherwise paid by the entity to a public service officer at the time of 
retirement or separation.'' The enforcement for this was a reduction in 
that local law enforcement block grant award.
  Mr. President, as I indicate, this has been the law since last year. 
It is currently in the House appropriations bill. Frankly, we are 
seeking an opportunity to put this into substantive law so we will not 
have to continue to rely upon the appropriations bill as the means of 
continuing this important protection for law enforcement officers which 
has strong support by all the major law enforcement agencies in 
America.
  So I send this amendment to the desk and will ask my colleagues for 
its favorable adoption when we consider these matters on Tuesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The bill 
clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 993.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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:
       At the appropriate place in title I of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 1. Of the amounts made available under this title 
     under the heading ``OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS'' under the 
     subheading ``state and local law enforcement assistance'', 
     not more than 90 percent of the amount otherwise to be 
     awarded to an entity under the Local Law Enforcement Block 
     Grant Program shall be made available to that entity, if it 
     is made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such amounts that the entity employs a 
     public safety officer (as that term is defined in section 
     1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968) does not provide an employee who is public 
     safety officer and who retires or is separated from service 
     due to injury suffered as the direct and proximate result of 
     a personal injury sustained in the line of duty while 
     responding to an emergency situation or a hot pursuit (as 
     such terms are defined by State law) with the same or better 
     level of health insurance benefits that are otherwise paid by 
     the entity to a public safety officer at the time of 
     retirement or separation.

  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. We have no objection to this amendment and I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 993) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been working on a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution which I hoped to have the agreement of a number of 
Members of the Senate who have similar interests on the issue of the 
using universal service funds for the purpose of reaching a balanced 
budget in the budget reconciliation conference that is now going on. I 
know that sounds foreign as a subject to those who are not familiar 
with it, but I want to explain it a little bit and describe why this is 
important.
  I have spoken to a number of Senators in the Chamber this evening--
Senator Stevens, the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hollings, 
Senator Daschle, Senator Snowe, and others who are concerned about 
something that is happening in the reconciliation conference that could 
have a significant impact on the cost of telephone service in rural 
areas in this country in the years ahead. Here is what it is.
  Our country has been fortunate to enjoy the benefits of a 
telecommunications system that says it does not matter where you live. 
If you live in an area where you have very high-cost service, there 
will be something called a universal service fund that helps drive down 
that high cost so that everyone in this country can afford telephone 
service, universally affordable telephone service. That is what the 
universal service fund is designed to do and has been designed to do 
for a long, long while. I come from a town of 300 people and telephone 
service there is affordable because the universal service fund drives 
down the rate of what would otherwise be high cost. The benefits of a 
national system is that every telephone in the country makes every 
other telephone more valuable. A telephone in my hometown in Regent, 
ND, makes Donald Trump's telephone more valuable in New York City 
because he can reach that telephone in Regent, ND. That is the whole 
concept of universally affordable telephone service, and it is why we 
have a universal service fund.
  Now, having said that, the universal service fund was reconstructed 
some--but not dramatically--during the Telecommunications Act passed by 
Congress a year and a half ago. We now have a balanced budget proposal 
that is in conference between the House and the Senate and some are 
saying in this negotiation that they want to use the revenues from the 
universal service fund out in the year 2002 in order to help plug a 
leak on the budget side.
  The fact is the universal service fund was never intended to be used 
for such a purpose. In fact, the universal service fund does not belong 
to the Government. It does not come into the Federal Treasury and is 
not expended by the Federal Government. It, therefore, ought not be a 
part of any discussion on budget negotiations, and yet it is.
  This week I have spoken several times to the Office of Management and 
Budget, and they have explained to me in great detail with no clarity 
at all why it is now part of this process. I have spoken to people who 
claim to be experts on this, and none of them have the foggiest idea 
about what the proposal actually does.
  Now, the reason I come to the floor to speak about it is this: We are 
nearing presumably the end of a conference, and if a conference report 
comes to the floor of the Senate using the universal service fund as 
part of a manipulated set of revenues in the year 2002, in order to 
reach some sort of budget figure, it will be an enormous disservice for 
the universal service fund. It will deny the purpose of the fund for 
which we in the Commerce Committee worked so hard to preserve in the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. This provision in the reconciliation 
bill will set a precedent that will be a terrible precedent for the 
future. The result will be, I guarantee, higher phone bills in rural 
areas in this country in the years ahead.

  I once stopped at a hotel in Minneapolis, MN, and there was a sign at 
the nearest parking space to the front door, and it said ``Manager's 
parking space.'' And then below it, it said, ``Don't even think about 
parking here.'' I don't expect anybody ever parked in that space 
besides the manager. Don't even think about parking here. I hope that 
the Senate will pass the sense-of-the-Senate resolution I have proposed 
that says to the reconciliation conference: ``do not even think about 
this.'' I say to the budget reconciliation conferees: ``do not try to 
bring to the floor of the Senate or the House a budget reconciliation 
conference report that manipulates and misuses the universal service 
fund.'' It is not right, it is not fair, and it will destroy the 
underpinnings of what we have done in telecommunications policy to 
provide affordable telephone service across this country for all 
Americans. Yes, especially, most especially Americans who live in the 
rural areas of this country.
  I have enormous respect for those people who put these budgets 
together. It is not easy. But this instance of using the universal 
service fund as is

[[Page S8069]]

now being proposed is, I am afraid, budget juggling at its worst. 
Juggling I suppose at a carnival or in the backyard is entertaining. 
Juggling in this circumstance using universal fund support to 
manipulate the numbers in 2002 is not entertaining to me. It is 
fundamentally wrong. This money does not belong to the Federal 
Government. It does not come to the Federal Treasury, and it is not 
spent by the Federal Government and has no place and no business in any 
reconciliation conference report.
  I was flabbergasted to learn that it was there and it is being 
discussed. I have spoken to the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget about this several times this week, spoken to others who are 
involved with it. And I must tell you I think that the Congressional 
Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and any member of 
the conference that espouses this is making a terrible, terrible 
mistake. I hope that the Senate will pass the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution I have proposed and that we can garner the support of the 
position I now espouse to say as that parking sign, ``don't even think 
about this.'' It is wrong, and it will disserve the interests that we 
have fought so hard to preserve affordable telephone service all across 
this country.
  The Senator from South Carolina has spent a great deal of time on 
this issue, as has the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from West 
Virginia, the Senator from Maine, and so many others. As I said, the 
wording is not yet agreed to on the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I 
hope it will be very shortly, and when it is I hope we will pass it and 
send a message that any conference report that comes back here ought 
not use universal service support funds because they are not our funds 
to use.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 994

 (Purpose: To amend section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, to 
 provide for the public disclosure of court appointed attorneys' fees 
                upon approval of such fees by the court)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have an amendment and I understand it 
is going to be accepted. I will let the managers do that in their wrap-
up if they would like unless the Senator has indicated that it is all 
right.
  Mr. President, I ask, has Senator Hollings cleared it?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It has been cleared.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
  I send an amendment to the desk, and since it is acceptable on both 
sides I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 994.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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:

       At the appropriate place in title I of the bill, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Section 3006A(d) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) Disclosure of fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) through 
     (E), the amounts paid under this subsection for services in 
     any case shall be made available to the public by the court 
     upon the court's approval of the payment.
       ``(B) Pre-trial or trial in progress.--If a trial is in 
     pre-trial status or still in progress and after considering 
     the defendant's interests as set forth in subparagraph (D), 
     the court shall--
       ``(i) redact any detailed information on the payment 
     voucher provided by defense counsel to justify the expenses 
     to the court; and
       ``(ii) make public only the amounts approved for payment to 
     defense counsel by dividing those amounts into the following 
     categories:
       ``(I) Arraignment and or plea.
       ``(II) Bail and detention hearings.
       ``(III) Motions.
       ``(IV) Hearings.
       ``(V) Interviews and conferences.
       ``(VI) Obtaining and reviewing records.
       ``(VII) Legal research and brief writing.
       ``(VIII) Travel time.
       ``(IX) Investigative work.
       ``(X) Experts.
       ``(XI) Trial and appeals.
       ``(XII) Other.
       ``(C) Trial completed.--
       ``(i) In general.--If a request for payment is not 
     submitted until after the completion of the trial and subject 
     to consideration of the defendant's interests as set forth in 
     subparagraph (D), the court shall make available to the 
     public an unredacted copy of the expense voucher.
       ``(ii) Protection of the rights of the defendant.--If the 
     court determines that defendant's interests as set forth in 
     subparagraph (D) require a limited disclosure, the court 
     shall disclose amounts as provided in subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) Considerations.--The interests referred to in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) are--
       ``(i) to protect any person's 5th amendment right against 
     self-incrimination;
       ``(ii) to protect the defendant's 6th amendment rights to 
     effective assistance of counsel;
       ``(iii) the defendant's attorney-client privilege;
       ``(iv) the work product privilege of the defendant's 
     counsel;
       ``(v) the safety of any person; and
       ``(vi) any other interest that justice may require.
       ``(E) Notice.--The court shall provide reasonable notice of 
     disclosure to the counsel of the defendant prior to the 
     approval of the payments in order to allow the counsel to 
     request redaction based on the considerations set forth in 
     subparagraph (D). Upon completion of the trial, the court 
     shall release unredacted copies of the vouchers provided by 
     defense counsel to justify the expenses to the court. If 
     there is an appeal, the court shall not release unredacted 
     copies of the vouchers provided by defense counsel to justify 
     the expenses to the court until such time as the appeals 
     process is completed, unless the court determines that none 
     of the defendant's interests set forth in subparagraph (D) 
     will be compromised.''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not sure, if I were to ask every 
Senator to take a guess, anyone would come anywhere close to answering 
this question correctly.
  I ask, how many dollars do you think we spent last year paying for 
defense lawyers for criminals in the Federal court who claim they don't 
have enough money to defend themselves?
  We have an obligation. The court has interpreted our Constitution to 
say they must have counsel, so I am not here complaining. But I don't 
think anyone--I see my friend from Iowa looking at me--would guess $308 
million, and growing tremendously, taxpayers' dollars to defend 
criminals in the Federal court system.
  I am not asking in this amendment that we review that process, 
although I kind of cry out to any committee that has jurisdiction and 
ask them to take a look. All I am doing in this amendment is changing 
the law slightly with reference to letting the taxpayer know how much 
we are paying criminal defense lawyers. All this amendment does is say 
when a payment is made to a criminal defense lawyer, a form has to be 
filed that indicates that payment. There is no violation of the sixth 
amendment because there are no details. We are not going to, in this 
statement, reveal the secret strategy of the defense counsel or their 
latest deposition theory. We are just saying, reveal the dollar amount 
so the American people know, through public sources, how much we are 
paying.
  Frankly, if I had a little more time, I would state some of the fees 
that we finally have ascertained, and I think many would say, ``Are you 
kidding?'' I will just give you three that we know of.
  Mr. President, what would you say if I told you that from the 
beginning of fiscal year 1996 through January 1997, $472,841 was paid 
to a lawyer to defend a person accused of a crime so heinous that the 
United States Attorney in the Northern District of New York is pursuing 
the death penalty? Who paid for this lawyer--the American taxpayer.
  What would you say if I told you that $470,968 was paid to a lawyer 
to defend a person accused of a crime so reprehensible that, there too, 
the United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida is also 
pursuing the death penalty? Who paid for this lawyer--the American 
taxpayer.
  What would you say if I told you that during the same period, for the 
same purpose, $443,683 was paid to another attorney to defend a person 
accused of a crime so villainous that the United States Attorney in the 
Northern District of New York is pursuing the death penalty? Who paid 
for this lawyer--the American taxpayer.
  Now, Mr. President, what would you say if I told you that some of 
these cases have been ongoing for three or more years and that total 
fees in some

[[Page S8070]]

instances will be more than $1 million in an individual case? That's $1 
million to pay criminal lawyers to defend people accused of the most 
vicious types of murders often which are of the greatest interest to 
the communities in which they were committed.
  At minimum, Mr. President, this Senator would say that we are 
spending a great deal of money on criminal defense lawyers and the 
American taxpayer ought to have timely access to the information that 
will tell them who is spending their money, and how it is being spent. 
That is why today I am introducing the ``Disclosure of Court Appointed 
Attorney's Fees and Taxpayer Right to Know Act of 1997''.
  Under current law, the maximum amount payable for representation 
before the United States Magistrate or the District Court, or both, is 
limited to $3,500 for each lawyer in a case in which one or more 
felonies are charged and $125 per hour per lawyer in death penalty 
cases. Many Senators might ask, if that is so, why are these exorbitant 
amounts being paid in the particular cases you mention? I say to my 
colleagues the reason this happens is because under current law the 
maximum amounts established by statute may be waived whenever the judge 
certifies that the amount of the excess payment is necessary to provide 
``fair compensation'' and the payment is approved by the Chief Judge on 
the circuit. In addition, whatever is considered ``fair compensation'' 
at the $125 per hour per lawyer rate may also be approved at the 
Judge's discretion.
  Mr. President, the American taxpayer has a legitimate interest in 
knowing what is being provided as ``fair compensation'' to defend 
individuals charged with these dastardly crimes in our federal court 
system. Especially when certain persons the American taxpayer is paying 
for mock the American Justice System. A recent Nightline episode 
reported that one of the people the American taxpayer is shelling out 
their hard earned money to defend urinated in open court, in front of 
the Judge, to demonstrate his feelings about the judge and the American 
judicial system.
  I want to be very clear about what exactly my bill would accomplish. 
The question of whether these enormous fees should be paid for these 
criminal lawyers is not, I repeat, is not a focus of my bill. In 
keeping with my strongly held belief that the American taxpayer has a 
legitimate interest in having timely access to this information, my 
bill simply requires that at the time the court approves the payments 
for these services, that the payments be publicly disclosed. Many 
Senators are probably saying right now that this sounds like a very 
reasonable request, and I think it is, but the problem is that often 
times these payments are not disclosed until long after the trial has 
been completed, and in some cases they may not be disclosed at all if 
the remains are sealed by the Judge. How much criminal defense lawyers 
are being paid should not be a secret. There is a way in which we can 
protect the alleged criminal's sixth amendment rights and still honor 
the American taxpayer's right to know. Mr. President, that is what my 
bill does.
  Current law basically leaves the question of when and whether court 
appointed attorneys' fees should be disclosed at the discretion of the 
Judge in which the particular case is being tried. My bill would take 
some of that discretion away and require that disclosure occur once the 
payment has been approved.
  My bill continues to protect the defendant's sixth amendment right to 
effective assistance of counsel, the defendant's attorney client 
privilege, the work product immunity of defendant's counsel, the safety 
of any witness, and any other interest that justice may require by 
providing notice to defense counsel that this information will be 
released, and allowing defense counsel, or the court on its own, to 
redact any information contained on the payment voucher that might 
compromise any of the aforementioned interests. That means that the 
criminal lawyer can ask the Judge to take his big black marker and 
black-out any information that might compromise these precious Sixth 
Amendment rights, or the Judge can make this decision on his own. In 
any case, the Judge will let the criminal lawyer know that this 
information will be released and the criminal lawyer will have the 
opportunity to request the Judge black-out any compromising information 
from the payment voucher.
  How would this occur? Under current law, criminal lawyers must fill 
out Criminal Justice Act payment vouchers in order to receive payment 
for services rendered. Mr. President, I have brought two charts to the 
floor to provide Senators with an example of what these payment 
vouchers look like so that they can get an understanding of what my 
bill would accomplish. These two payment vouchers are the standard 
vouchers used in the typical felony and death penalty cases prosecuted 
in the federal district courts. As you can see Mr. President, the 
information on these payment vouchers describes in barebones fashion 
the nature of the work performed and the amount that is paid for each 
category of service.
  My bill says that once the Judge approves these payment vouchers that 
they be publicly disclosed. That means that anyone can walk down to the 
federal district court where the case is being tried and ask the clerk 
of the court for copies of the relevant CJA payment vouchers. It's that 
simple. Nothing more. Nothing less.
  Before the court releases this information it will provide notice to 
defense counsel that the information will be released, and either the 
criminal lawyer, or the Judge on his/her own, may black-out any of the 
barebones information on the payment voucher that might compromise the 
alleged criminal's precious sixth amendment rights.
  Mr. President, I believe that my bill is a modest step toward 
assuring that the American taxpayer have timely access to this 
information. In addition to these CJA payment vouchers, criminal 
lawyers must also supply the court with detailed time sheets that 
recount with extreme particularity the nature of the work performed. 
These detailed time sheets break down the work performed by the 
criminal lawyer to the minute. They name each and every person that was 
interviewed, each and every phone call that was made, the subjects that 
were discussed and the days and the times they took place. They go into 
intimate detail about what was done to prepare briefs, conduct 
investigations, and prepare for trial.
  Mr. President, clearly if this information were subject to public 
disclosure the alleged criminal's sixth amendment rights might be 
compromised. My bill does not seek to make this sensitive information 
subject to public disclosure, but rather continues to leave it to the 
Judge to determine if and when it should be released. In this way, my 
bill recognizes and preserves the delicate balance between the American 
taxpayers' right to know how their money is being spent, and the 
alleged criminal's right to a fair trial.
  I believe we should take every reasonable step to protect any 
disclosure that might compromise the alleged criminal's sixth amendment 
rights. My bill does this by providing notice to defense counsel of the 
release of the information, and providing the Judge with the authority 
to black-out any of the barebones information contained on the payment 
voucher if it might compromise any of the aforementioned interests. I 
believe it is reasonable and fair, and I hope I will have my 
colleagues' support.
  I am very pleased the Senate will accept this. I hope the House does. 
I believe they will. Because I think the public has a right to know. As 
a matter of fact, I think we have a right to know, case by case, 
payment by payment, how much is being paid by the taxpayer to defend 
criminals in the Federal court.
  I yield the floor.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 994) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 995

(Purpose: To Provide for the Payment of Special Masters, and for Other 
                               Purposes)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kyl, I send an 
amendment to the desk.

[[Page S8071]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Kyl, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 995.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SPECIAL MASTERS FOR CIVIL ACTIONS CONCERNING PRISON 
                   CONDITIONS.

       Section 3626(f) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(f) Special Masters for Civil Actions Concerning Prison 
     Conditions.--''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(4)'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), as so designated, by adding at the 
     end the following: ``In no event shall a court require a 
     party to a civil action under this subsection to pay the 
     compensation, expenses, or costs of a special master. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 
     306 of the Act entitled `An Act making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1997,' contained in section 101(a) of title I of division A 
     of the Act entitled `An Act making omnibus consolidated 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997' 
     (110 Stat. 3009-201)) and except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), the requirement under the preceding sentence shall apply 
     to the compensation and payment of expenses or costs of a 
     special master for any action that is commenced, before, on, 
     or after the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation 
     Reform Act of 1995.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) The payment requirements under subparagraph (A) shall 
     not apply to the payment to a special master who was 
     appointed before the date of enactment of the Prison 
     Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (110 Stat. 1321-165 et seq.) of 
     compensation, expenses, or costs relating to activities of 
     the special master under this subsection that were carried 
     out during the period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and ending on the 
     date of enactment of this subparagraph.''.

  Mr. GREGG. I move to set aside the amendment by Senator Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 996

  (Purpose: To require the Attorney General to submit a report on the 
feasibility of requiring convicted sex offenders to submit DNA samples 
                     for law enforcement purposes)

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

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 996.

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

       At the appropriate place in title I of the bill, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . REPORT ON COLLECTING DNA SAMPLES FROM SEX OFFENDERS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``criminal offense against a victim who is a 
     minor'', ``sexually violent offense'', and ``sexually violent 
     predator'' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     170101(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)));
       (2) the term ``DNA'' means deoxyri- bonucleic acid; and
       (3) the term ``sex offender'' means an individual who--
       (A) has been convicted in Federal court of--
       (i) a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor; or
       (ii) a sexually violent offense; or
       (B) is a sexually violent predator.
       (b) Report.--From amounts made available to the Department 
     of Justice under this title, not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to Congress a report, which shall include a plan for 
     the implementation of a requirement that, prior to the 
     release (including probation, parole, or any other supervised 
     release) of any sex offender from Federal custody following a 
     conviction for a criminal offense against a victim who is a 
     minor or a sexually violent offense, the sex offender shall 
     provide a DNA sample to the appropriate law enforcement 
     agency for inclusion in a national law enforcement DNA 
     database.
       (c) Plan Requirements.--The plan submitted under subsection 
     (b) shall include recommendations concerning--
       (1) a system for--
       (A) the collection of blood and saliva specimens from any 
     sex offender;
       (B) the analysis of the collected blood and saliva 
     specimens for DNA and other genetic typing analysis; and
       (C) making the DNA and other genetic typing information 
     available for law enforcement purposes only;
       (2) guidelines for coordination with existing Federal and 
     State DNA and genetic typing information databases and for 
     Federal cooperation with State and local law in sharing this 
     information;
       (3) addressing constitutional, privacy, and related 
     concerns in connection with mandatory submission of DNA 
     samples; and
       (4) procedures and penalties for the prevention of improper 
     disclosure or dissemination of DNA or other genetic typing 
     information.

  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 997

     (Purpose: To Express the Sense of the Senate That the Federal 
   Government Should not Withhold Universal Service Support Payments)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. On behalf of Senator Dorgan and others, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     Dorgan, for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Hollings and Mr. 
     Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 997.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
                   SHOULD NOT MANIPULATE UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT 
                   PAYMENTS TO BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

       Whereas the Congress reaffirmed the importance of universal 
     service support for telecommunications services by passing 
     the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
       Whereas the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the 
     Federal Communications Commission to preserve and advance 
     universal service based on the following principles:
       (A) Quality services should be available at just, 
     reasonable, and affordable rates;
       (B) Access to advanced telecommunications and information 
     services should be provided in all regions of the Nation;
       (C) Consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-
     income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost 
     areas, should have access to telecommunications and 
     information services, including interexchange services and 
     advanced telecommunications and information services, that 
     are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban 
     areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably 
     comparable to rates charged for similar services;
       (D) All providers of telecommunications services should 
     make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the 
     preservation and advancement of universal service;
       (E) There should be specific, predictable, and sufficient 
     Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance 
     universal service; and
       (F) Elementary and secondary schools and classrooms, health 
     care providers, and libraries should have access to advanced 
     telecommunications services;
       Whereas Federal and State universal contributions are 
     administered by an independent, non-Federal entity and are 
     not deposited into the Federal Treasury and therefore not 
     available for Federal appropriations;
       Whereas the Conference Committee on H.R. 2015, the Budget 
     Reconciliation Bill, is considering proposals that would 
     withhold Federal and State universal service funds in the 
     year 2002; and
       Whereas the withholding of billions of dollars of universal 
     service support payments will mean significant rate increases 
     in rural and high cost areas and will deny qualifying 
     schools, libraries, and rural health facilities discounts 
     directed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
       Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Conference Committee on H.R. 2015 should not manipulate, 
     modify, or impair universal service support as a means to 
     achieve a balanced Federal budget or achieve Federal budget 
     savings.


                           Amendment No. 998

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I also, on behalf of the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, send an amendment to the desk and 
ask the clerk to report it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 998.

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

[[Page S8072]]

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

       Section 310001(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) for fiscal year 2001, $4,355,000,000; and
       ``(8) for fiscal year 2002, $4,455,000,000.''.
       Beginning on the date of enactment of this legislation, the 
     non-defense discretionary spending limits contained in 
     Section 201 of H.Con Res. (105th Congress) are reduced as 
     follows:
       for fiscal year 2001, $4,355,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $5,936,000,000 in outlays;
       for fiscal year 2002, $4,455,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $4,485,000,000 in outlays.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the junior Senator from West Virginia 
wishes to continue, a little bit, the comments that were made by the 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan]. Needless to say, the Senator 
from West Virginia not only wholly agrees with him, but would carry the 
argument even further.
  The concept of universal service is literally sacred in our country. 
For the majority of the people of our land, which is rural land, it is 
the only lifeline they have potentially to the present day and to their 
future day. They are able to afford certain kinds of rural rates. But 
if people start to take the universal service fund and use it for any 
other purpose other than what it was originally intended, the whole 
system of equality between rural States and urban States, of user 
States and using States, disappears. The concept of universal service 
is ended.
  I would like to suggest that this is not a thought which is held by 
myself alone. I ask at this moment to have printed in the Record a 
letter from the U.S. Telephone Association and a letter from the Rural 
Telephone Coalition on the subject that the Senator from North Dakota 
and I were discussing.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     United States


                                        Telephone Association,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 1997.
     Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: The United States Telephone 
     Association (``USTA''), representing more than 1,200 
     companies, is dismayed that Congress has chosen universal 
     telephone service as a vehicle to balance the budget by the 
     year 2002. While USTA recognizes the endeavors of key leaders 
     in rejecting spectrum fees and other inappropriate budget 
     proposals, exploiting the universal telephone service fund to 
     balance the budget is not only bad precedent, it is bad 
     telecommunications policy. Accordingly, USTA strenuously 
     urges you to oppose this proposal in conference.
       In its effort to meet the budget accord, the U.S. House of 
     Representatives adopted a reconciliation package that 
     maneuvers universal telephone service support moneys to 
     satisfy current budgetary objectives. To make up for a $2 
     billion budget shortfall, the House's proposal borrows $2 
     billion in FY 2001 while artificially reducing universal 
     telephone service support by this same amount in FY 2002. 
     This proposal needlessly jeopardizes a privately run support 
     system that continues to work without federal monetary aid. 
     Moreover, such a ``scoring'' device sets a dangerous 
     precedent that could damage this nation's universal telephone 
     service policy necessary to maintain nationwide, affordable 
     telecommunications service.
       USTA has opposed the Office of Management and Budget and 
     the Congressional Budget Office for more than two years over 
     their claims of authority to reflect universal telephone 
     service transactions on the federal budget. The 
     Telecommunications Act clearly establishes the manner in 
     which universal telephone service funds are collected and 
     disbursed. Pursuant to the Act, universal telephone service 
     moneys logically should not be classified as either federal 
     receipts or federal disbursements and thus should not be 
     associated with the federal budget, as the Administration has 
     insisted and Congress has allowed.
       USTA appreciates your continued support regarding the 
     elimination of such budget proposals as the imposition of 
     spectrum fees. Similarly, USTA strongly urges you to reject 
     any proposals that would seek to balance the budget at the 
     expense of universal telephone service. We hope we can count 
     on you to help keep such initiatives out of the final 
     conferenced agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Roy Neel,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                              NRTA--NTCA--OPASTCO,


                                    Rural Telephone Coalition,

                                    Washington, DC, July 10, 1997.
       Dear Senator/Representative: The undersigned collectively 
     representing approximately 850 of the nation's small rural 
     incumbent local exchange carriers, have been closely 
     following the struggle of the Congress to develop a 
     reconciliation package that meets the targets assigned by the 
     recent budget accord. Although we understand the difficult 
     nature of this task, we applaud the efforts of key leaders 
     who have prevented the adoption of many of the more 
     unrealistic and unjustified concepts for meeting the 
     agreement's targets. These concepts include auctioning 
     electromagnetic radio spectrum at all costs, imposing new 
     electromagnetic radio spectrum fees and auctioning toll-free 
     ``vanity'' numbers.
       However, we are alarmed that the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, in its last-minute effort to achieve the 
     budget agreement's targets, adopted a reconciliation package 
     containing language that manipulates universal service 
     support moneys to do so. Universal telecommunications service 
     is a national policy objective, but the moneys that are 
     involved in effectuating this policy are strictly private, 
     not governmental as the House initiative attempts to suggest. 
     The House provision seeks to create the illusion that the 
     U.S. government should somehow have access to these private 
     universal service moneys for the sole purpose of balancing 
     the budget.
       Specifically, in attempting to make up for a $2 billion 
     budget shortfall, the U.S. House of Representatives has 
     adopted a reconciliation package that uses universal service 
     support moneys to meet its present budget objectives and even 
     seems to suggest that a totally unnecessary appropriation is 
     involved. This proposal borrows $2 billion in fiscal year 
     (FY) 2001 while artificially reducing universal service 
     support by this same amount in FY 2002--budget gimmickry 
     Congress should reject. This proposal unnecessarily 
     jeopardizes a privately run support system that continues to 
     work without federal monetary aid. Such a misleading 
     ``scoring'' device sets a dangerous precedent that could 
     permanently damage the nation's statutory universal service 
     policy and budget process.
       Our organizations have opposed the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for 
     more than two years over their claims of authority to reflect 
     universal service transactions on the federal budget. 
     Universal service flow transactions represent the collection 
     and distribution of private moneys, for the sole purpose of 
     recovering private investment and expenses necessary to 
     maintain nationwide universal telecommunications service. 
     Therefore, universal service moneys logically cannot be 
     classified as either federal receipts or federal 
     disbursements and thus legally should not be associated with 
     the federal budget, as the administration has insisted and 
     the Congress has allowed.
       We are pleased that Congress rejected spectrum fees and 
     other inappropriate proposals that had the sole intent of 
     meeting budgetary targets. However, manipulation of universal 
     service moneys to look like U.S. government resources is not 
     only bad precedent, but also had telecommunications policy. 
     Any measure embracing such a proposal should be strenuously 
     opposed. We hope we can count on your support to keep such 
     initiatives out of the final conferenced reconciliation 
     package. Please feel free to contact any one of our 
     organizations if you have questions about this critical 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
     John F. O'Neal,
     General Counsel, National Rural Telecom Association.
     Michael E. Brunner,
       Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, 
     National Telephone Cooperative Association.
     John N. Rose,
       President, Organization for the Promotion and Advancement 
     of Small Telecommunications Companies.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There is another aspect which worries me greatly. I 
have heard so many people talk about the importance of technology and 
the importance of understanding that technology is our future and the 
fact that so many of the people in our rural areas and in our urban 
areas are not hooked up to the Internet and hooked up to all of the 
advantages that technology and the computer brings us. It was with that 
in mind that during the consideration of the Telecommunications Act, a 
number of Senators, led

[[Page S8073]]

by Senator Snowe of Maine, put forward an amendment which would allow, 
for the very first time, money to be used with the full consent of the 
carriers, to be used to wire up 116,000 schools in this country, 
endless numbers of public libraries, enormous numbers of rural health 
clinics so that they could develop in the practice of telemedicine and 
other new technologies that are now and will be available.
  If what is being contemplated by those who are working on the 
reconciliation process is the use of universal service money to plug up 
a potential shortfall in the spectrum auction, the entire Snowe 
amendment, which relates to whether or not we are going to have a 
first- or second-class citizenry in this country --first-class being 
those who have the money to have computers in their schools and at home 
and then the second class, and that being the majority, being those who 
do not--all of that will go down.
  I make the further point that this is not the Government's money. 
Some may try to argue that it is, but it is money that is paid into a 
special fund and it is money which is being administered by something 
called NECA, which is the ``national exchange cable association''--I 
believe that is what it stands for. They are private. They are private. 
They are a private entity administering this fund.
  This has been through a Senate process where it was agreed to in a 
bipartisan debate, 98 to 1. It has been through a joint board, FCC 
process, that is State and FCC together, voting 8 to nothing, and 
through a further final FCC process, 4 to nothing--unanimous, virtually 
the entire way through.
  If the budget negotiators use this universal service fund for any 
purpose other than for the purposes that the universal service fund is 
meant to be used for, I think it begins a tremendous downfall in not 
only our future in terms of rural rates, but also in terms of learning 
and technology. The Vice President of the United States, our former 
colleague, Albert Gore, said that in his view the Snowe amendment, 
relating to 116,000 schools, more public libraries and more rural 
health clinics, was the biggest and most important thing that had 
happened in education policy in the last 30 years. He may have said, in 
this century.
  In any event, all of that is in jeopardy, and the resolution, which 
is being circulated, I hope will be carried by staff members and others 
who hear the voice of the Senator from North Dakota and myself, to 
their Senators to know that something called universal service is in 
dire jeopardy as of this moment, because the tampering with that 
universal service is now in the bill that may come before us. There has 
to be a change made. Change is hard to come by. In other words, we 
really are at the ramparts on this issue.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, NECA is the National Exchange Carriers 
Association. Mr. President, this association was formed at the breakup 
of AT&T back in 1984, and it is a private entity, whereby the different 
carriers, through their trade associations, self-impose, in an 
intermittent fashion, the amounts due and owing in order to constitute 
what we call the universal service fund. It is a private entity. There 
is no Federal law that says you can be a member or shall be a member or 
you cannot be a member. It is not under the Federal law; it is under 
this particular entity that it was associated with and together at that 
particular time of the breakup.
  It depends on the volume of business, obviously. If you get a greater 
volume and more burdens and so forth--for high-cost areas is really 
what it was for, initially. It is now being extended to rural, being 
extended for the schools and the hospitals. But the high-cost areas are 
being taken care of under this universal service fund.
  Mr. President, what we are seeing here--and I hope the conferees on 
reconciliation get the message--this is the epitome of the national 
loot. In 1994, this Congress passed, President Clinton signed into law 
the Pension Reform Act. Under that Pension Reform Act, it provided 
certain penalties, whereby you can't loot the pension funds of the 
particular corporate America. They wanted to make sure that a person in 
this particular corporation who had worked over the years and 
everything else, didn't have a newcomer in a merger or buyout or 
whatever it is, abscond with all the moneys and all of a sudden your 
pension was gone.
  Now, it so happens that in the news here, about 6 weeks ago, now 8 
weeks ago, that a famous American, Denny McLain, the all-time all-star 
pitcher, I think it was, for the Detroit Tigers, became a president of 
the corporation and he used the corporate pension fund in violation of 
law to pay the company's debt, and he was promptly sentenced to an 8-
year jail sentence. We do it at the Federal level and get the good 
Government award.
  We loot the Social Security pension fund, the Medicare trust fund, 
the civil service pension trust fund, the military retirees' trust 
fund. They even had in the reconciliation bill --and I put in an 
amendment--the looting of the airport and airways improvement fund, 
whereby the moneys that are supposed to go to the improvement of the 
airways instead is going to the deficit.
  Now the cabal, the conspiracy that they call a conference committee 
has the unmitigated gall to provide as follows, and I read:

       The Senate recedes to the House with modifications.
       3006 of this title provides that expenditures from the 
     universal service fund under part 54 of the Commission's 
     rules for the fiscal year 2002 shall not exceed the amount of 
     revenue to be collected for that fiscal year, less [blank] 
     billion dollars.
       Section 3006(B) further provides that any outlays not made 
     from the universal service fund in fiscal year 2002 under 
     subsection (A) are immediately available commencing October 
     1, 2002.
       The conferees note that this subsection shall not be 
     construed to require the amount of revenues collected under 
     part 54 of the Commission's rules to be increased.

  What in the world, how else is it going to be done? If you take the 
amount of the funds necessary to keep universal service constant, less 
X billion dollars or million dollars, whatever, that they want to fit 
in here for a budget fix, then the companies and the associations 
through their companies that make the contributions are going to have 
to immediately either cut out the service under the service fund and 
the rules and regulations of the entity that controls it or raise the 
rates, and then the politicians will all run around saying, ``I'm 
against taxes, I'm against rate increases,'' when they are causing it 
in a shameful, shameless way in this particular provision and not even 
put in the amount. They have a blank here, and they are going to fill 
in the amount, and it is another smoke and another mirror and another 
loot.
  Oh, yes, wonderful. We pass overwhelmingly the Pension Reform Act to 
make sure that it is a trust and it can be depended upon, and here, in 
the very same Congress, we come around and we loot all the particular 
funds, and now we find a private one. Maybe they will get the Brownback 
fund before they get through, if they can find it, and add that to it, 
too. They can get anybody's fund and put something down in black and 
white and they say, ``Oh, what good boys we are. We put in our thumb 
and pulled out a plum, and we balance the budget.''
  Turn to page 4 on the conference report on a so-called balance budget 
agreement and report for the 5-year period terminating fiscal year 
2002, and on page 4, line 15, the word is not ``balance,'' the word is 
``deficit,'' $173.9 billion deficit.
  Yet, the print media--I am glad this is on C-SPAN so the people 
within the sound of my voice can at least hear it, because they are not 
going to print it--the media goes along with the loot, and then they 
wonder why the budget is not balanced. If we only level with the 
American people, they would understand you can't cut taxes without 
increasing taxes.
  We have increased the debt with that particular shenanigan to the 
tune now of $5.4 trillion with interest costs on the national debt of 
$1 billion a day. So when you cut down more revenues to pay, you 
increase the debt, you increase the interest costs, so you get 
reelected next year, because I stood for tax cuts, but they won't tell 
them that with the child tax cut that they have actually increased the 
tax for the child. Now that is at least in the Congressional Record in 
black and white.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S8074]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1022, the 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1998. The Senate bill provides $31.6 billion in budget 
authority and $21.2 billion in new outlays to operate the programs of 
the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of State, 
the Judiciary and Related Agencies for fiscal year 1998. When outlays 
from prior-year budget authority and other completed actions are taken 
into account, the bill totals $31.6 billion in budget authority and 
$29.4 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1998. The subcommittee is 
within its revised section 602(b) allocation for budget authority and 
outlays.
  Mr. President, I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman, 
Senator Gregg, for bringing this bill to the floor. It is not easy to 
balance the competing program requirements that are funded in this 
bill. I thank the chairman for the consideration he gave to issues I 
brought before the subcommittee, and his extra effort to address the 
items in the bipartisan balanced budget agreement. It has been a 
pleasure to serve on the subcommittee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

           S. 1022, COMMERCE-JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS, 1998; SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                                   [Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Defense  Nondefense    Crime   Mandatory    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported bill:
  Budget authority.........................................      275     25,587      5,225        522    31,609
  Outlays..................................................      322     25,188      3,381        532    29,423
Senate 602(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.........................................      297     25,588      5,225        522    31,632
  Outlays..................................................      322     25,479      3,401        532    29,734
President's request:
  Budget authority.........................................      257     26,114      5,238        522    32,131
  Outlays..................................................      286     25,907      3,423        532    30,148
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.........................................
  Outlays..................................................
 
             SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 602(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.........................................      (22)        (1)   ........  .........      (23)
  Outlays..................................................  ........      (291)       (20)  .........     (311)
President's request:
  Budget authority.........................................       18       (527)       (13)  .........     (522)
  Outlays..................................................       36       (719)       (42)  .........     (725)
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.........................................      275     25,587      5,225        522    31,334
  Outlays..................................................      322     25,188      3,381        532    29,423
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.

                       carbon monoxide violations

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we consider funding for the 
Environmental Protection Agency, I would like to raise the issue of 
Clean Air Act carbon monoxide violations in my home town of Fairbanks 
with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
Senator Chafee.
  As the chairman knows, Fairbanks has one of the highest rates of 
temperature inversions in the world. When such inversions occur, 
pollutants from any source in the area are trapped at extremely low 
altitudes. For example, it is not uncommon to see the smoke from house 
chimneys trapped directly above a house rather than disbursed in the 
atmosphere as in other cities nationwide.
  While I would have preferred that the EPA not go forward with a bump-
up on the rating of Fairbanks' air from moderate to serious, I 
recognize that this bill is not the place to accomplish that goal. I 
would like to point out that in the past 20 years, Fairbanks has 
reduced its violation days from 160 to as low as 1 last year. It is 
these last violations that are causing difficulties for communities 
nationwide. However, Fairbanks may never be able to prevent several 
violations per year due to its unique and extreme cold weather. It is 
my hope that the EPA would work with Fairbanks to develop strategies to 
mitigate the pollution that is so severely magnified by the extreme 
cold weather of my hometown.
  Mr. STEVENS. I want to reiterate the concerns expressed by my 
colleague, Senator Murkowski. The reality may be that no matter what 
Fairbanks does, it may never be able to comply with EPA standards 
because of its geographic location.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senators from Alaska for their remarks about 
carbon monoxide violations in Fairbanks. Their hometown has 
dramatically reduced the number of exceedences over the past 20 years 
and should be recognized for this success. It is my hope that the EPA 
will continue to work with Fairbanks to devise pollution reduction 
strategies that recognize the unique conditions that exist in 
Fairbanks.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI: I thank my friend from Rhode Island.


                office of the u.s. trade representative

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss one 
provision in the legislation now before the Senate. Under the heading 
of Related Agencies, the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill 
provides funding for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
  As my colleagues know, our Nation's Special Trade Representative, 
backed by the team of staff at USTR, is responsible for negotiating and 
administering trade agreements and coordinating overall trade policy 
for the United States. Those are significant responsibilities, and they 
are critical to the economic interests of American firms, workers, 
consumers, and families.
  For an agency with such significant duties, USTR does not consume 
much in the way of taxpayer monies. Annual funding for USTR has hovered 
at just over $20 million for the past 5 years. In terms of the Federal 
budget--or for that matter of the several other agencies funded by this 
bill--$20 million is a mere pittance.
  I might say that for what we get in return, the funds spent on USTR 
represent quite a bargain. Thanks to USTR, we have in place trade 
agreements and policies that allow our companies to compete 
successfully worldwide. And where barriers remain, the USTR team works 
continuously to make further progress. Their work over the years has 
affected billions of dollars in U.S. trade and contributes enormously 
to the health of the overall U.S. economy.
  Now, USTR does not require much in funding because for the most part, 
appropriations are spent on two items: salaries and travel. Those basic 
necessities--the salaries that pay the staff, and the travel that is 
required for the various ongoing negotiations with our trading partners 
around the world--make up the bulk of USTR's financial needs. There is 
not much fat there. Therefore, every dime they get is critical.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Commerce-State-Justice 
Subcommittee for allocating the full budget request for USTR for fiscal 
year 1998. Under his bill, the Office of the USTR will receive 
$22,092,000, exactly what the administration sought. I want to thank 
him for that.
  Let me raise one concern, however, that I know is shared by 
the leadership and most members of the Senate Finance Committee. Since 
the January 1995 implementation of the Uruguay round agreements and the 
WTO, USTR has taken on an enormous new docket of cases in which the 
United States is involved, and all of these cases now come with strict 
deadlines. As of July 1, there were pending some 47 WTO or NAFTA cases 
in which the United States is a plaintiff, a defendant, or otherwise a 
participant. That is quite a workload. Yet despite the increase, USTR 
has not increased its career legal staff. The number of lawyers and 
litigators now on staff is virtually the same as in the pre-WTO days. 
USTR has just 12 lawyers in Washington, with 2 more in Geneva, and only 
2 of them are able to devote themselves fulltime to the international 
litigation. That dearth of staff makes no sense--and only hurts our 
efforts to win our cases.

  I believe USTR must have the resources and personnel that it needs to 
fulfill its responsibilities. While I am delighted that USTR received 
its full budget request, I must say that the budget request amount is 
simply not realistic for an agency facing these new assignments. Even a 
modest increase of, say, $1 million--which again, in terms of the 
federal budget is not even visible--would make a significant and 
positive difference to the ability of USTR to carry out its work. And 
that in turn would only benefit US workers and families, and the 
overall US economy.
  I want to urge USTR to press the Office of Management and Budget to 
recognize their new workload. I have mentioned this repeatedly to 
Ambassador Barshefsky and I hope she will act on it. And I want to 
exhort OMB in the strongest terms possible to adjust next year's budget 
request accordingly for

[[Page S8075]]

USTR. I am confident that such an adjustment would be met with favor by 
the members of the authorizing committee, namely the Senate Finance 
Committee.
  If OMB fails to act, then it may fall to Congress to do the right 
thing, and make the small but necessary increased investment in this 
agency. Indeed, I seriously considered taking such a step during 
today's debate. But for now I will wait. Thanks to the good work of the 
chairman, we do have in this bill $22 million in full funding for USTR, 
and I intend to do what I can to make sure that that full $22 million 
becomes law. However, I call upon the administration in no uncertain 
terms to ensure that in the budget submitted next year, USTR is 
provided the resources they need.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am happy to say that, after reviewing 
the bill before the Senate, I find relatively few examples of pork-
barrel spending. I stress, relatively few, since I can still find a few 
objectionable provisions in the bill and many in the report. But there 
are far fewer problems with this bill than the last few appropriations 
bills we have passed in the Senate.
  This bill contains the usual earmarks for centers of excellence. In 
particular, bill earmarks $22 million for the East-West Center in 
Hawaii and $3 million for the North/South Center in Florida.
  These amounts represent a combined increase of $16.5 million above 
the administration's request.
  Last week, I spoke about the problem of Congress establishing, at 
taxpayer expense, centers for the study of virtually every subject, 
irrespective of the availability of research and analysis on those 
issues already available from existing universities and private 
research institutions.
  This enormous increase in funding for the East-West and North/South 
Centers is incomprehensible given the dire state of U.S. diplomatic 
representation in many of the newly independent countries of the post-
cold-war world. They are particularly inexplicable in light of the 
committee's decision to zero out the funding for the National Endowment 
for Democracy, a decision which the Senate fortunately reversed earlier 
today.
  Mr. President, I would not be at all surprised to see in next year's 
bill funding for a North-by-Northwest Center, perhaps to include a 
banquet room honoring the last Alfred Hitchcock.
  The bill also contains language that directs the U.S. Marshals 
Service to provide a magnetometer and not less than one qualified guard 
at each entrance to the Federal facility located at 625 Silver, S.W., 
in Albuquerque, NM. I must say that this is perhaps the most specific 
earmark I have ever seen, even providing an address to ensure the 
assets are delivered to the proper beneficiaries.
  Once again, though, the Appropriations Committee has contributed a 
few new and innovative ways to earmark port-barrel spending.
  The most interesting is language that I will call a reverse earmark. 
The report earmarks $8 million to begin addressing the backlog in 
repair and maintenance of FBI-owned facilities, other than those 
located in and around Washington, DC and Quantico, VA. I wonder whether 
my colleagues from this area were aware that they had been singled out 
for exclusion from an earmark.

  Other report language earmarks are more typical, such as: Various 
earmarks for southwest border activities, although I note that my 
colleagues singled out the New Mexico and Texas borders for special 
attention to combat illegal border crossing and drug smuggling 
problems. I was of the impression that these problems were prevalent 
across the entire border with Mexico, including Arizona and California.
  Similarly, the report requires that two-thirds of the additional 
1,000 border patrol agents are to be deployed in Texas sectors, with 
the remaining 300-plus agencies to be scattered across New Mexico, 
Arizona, or California. The report earmarks $1 million for Nova 
Southeastern University in Florida for the establishment of a National 
Coral Reef Institute to conduct research on, what else, coral reefs. 
And it also earmarks $1 million to the University of Hawaii to conduct 
similar coral reef studies. I suppose this might be considered a good 
idea to fund competitive research projects, except these institutions 
did not have to compete to get these funds, nor will they likely have 
to compete to continue to receive hand-outs to continue their coral 
reef research.
  The report contains $410,000 for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 
Commission, and $200,000 for the Beluga Whale Commission. It contains 
$2.3 million to reduce tsunami risks to residents and visitors in 
Oregon, Washington, California, Hawaii, and Alaska. And it earmarks $88 
million in NOAA construction funds for specific locations in Alaska, 
Hawaii, South Carolina, Mississippi, and other States.
  And finally, this bill contains earmarks for assistance to the U.S. 
Olympic Committee to prepare for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah. I 
found $3 million for communications and security infrastructure 
upgrades, $2 million to formulate a public safety master plan, and 
language directing that NTIA provide telecommunications support to the 
Utah Olympics similar to that provided in Atlanta last summer. As my 
colleagues know, this is just a small portion of the funding we will 
see channeled to the Utah Olympics. It is in addition to the money 
included in the supplemental passed earlier this year and in other 
appropriations bills that have already passed this body.
  While the wasteful spending in this bill is less onerous than in 
other bills I have seen in the past 2 weeks, I still have to object 
strenuously to the inclusion of these earmarks and add-ons in the bill. 
We cannot afford pork-barrel spending, even the amount contained in 
this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of the objectionable provisions 
in this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  Objectionable Provisions in S. 1022 FY 1998 Commerce/Justice/State/
                     Judiciary Appropriations Bill


                             bill language

       Earmarks for funding for the National Advocacy Center in 
     Columbia, South Carolina, which was authorized in 1993 as a 
     center for training federal, state, and local prosecutors and 
     litigators in advocacy skills and management of legal 
     operations: $2.5 million for operations, salaries, and 
     expenses of the Center, $2.1 million to support the National 
     District Attorney's Association participation in legal 
     education training at the Center.
       U.S. Marshals Service is directed to provide ``a 
     magnetometer and not less than one qualified guard'' at each 
     entrance to a federal facility (including both buildings and 
     related grounds) at 625 Silver, S.W., in Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico
       $125,000 of State Department Diplomatic and Consular 
     Programs funding earmarked for the Maui Pacific Center
       $22 million of USIA funds earmarked for the Center for 
     Cultural and Technical Interchange between East and West in 
     the State of Hawaii, and $3 million for an educational 
     institution in Florida known as the North/South Center
       Section 606 prohibits construction, repair, or overhaul of 
     vessels for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration in shipyards outside the U.S.


                            report language

       Department of Justice:
       Various earmarks for Southwest Border activities, 
     including: $281,000 for a Southwest Border initiative; $11.4 
     million for Southwest Border control; $29.7 million and the 
     direction to allocate additional necessary resources to 
     address border crossing and drug smuggling problems along the 
     New Mexico and Texas borders; $39.3 million in construction 
     and engineering funds for facilities at 29 specific locations 
     along the Southwest Border
       Earmark of not less than $468,000 of the U.S. Marshals 
     Service funding for witness security New York metro 
     inspectors
       Earmark of $700,000 for acquisition and installation of 
     video conferencing equipment in jails and courthouses in New 
     York, Illinois, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Washington, and sites 
     to be determined in New Mexico and Texas after consultation 
     with the Appropriations Committee
       Language urging the FBI to favorably consider the FBI 
     Center in West Virginia as the location for a new training 
     program on the investigative use of computers, for which $1 
     million was earmarked
       $1.5 million to maintain an independent program office 
     dedicated solely to the relocation of the Criminal Justice 
     Information Services Division and automation of fingerprint 
     identification services
       Increase of $8 million to begin addressing the backlog in 
     repair and maintenance of FBI-owned facilities, other than 
     those located in and around Washington, D.C. and Quantico, 
     Virginia
       Earmarks of a portion of the increased funding and 
     positions for identification, apprehension, detention, and 
     deportation of illegal aliens, as follows: $48.3 million for 
     additional detention capacity, including 300 beds in New 
     York, 300 bed in Florida, and 400 beds

[[Page S8076]]

     in California facilities; $5 million for the Law Enforcement 
     Support Center and expanded services of the Center in Utah.
       Directive to deploy not less than two-thirds of the 1,000 
     new border patrol agents in the Mafa, Del Rio, Laredo, and 
     McAllen sectors in Texas
       Earmarks of increased funding for inspection activities 
     for: Full-time manning of three in-transit lounges at Miami 
     International Airport; $4 million for dedicated commuter 
     lanes, including equipment and facilities, at Laredo, 
     Hidalgo, and El Paso, Texas, and Nogales, Arizona; $1.7 
     million to staff three new airports in Oregon, California, 
     and Nova Scotia; $700,000 for automated permit ports in 
     Maine, Vermont, New York, Montana, Washington, Alaska, and 
     New York; $1.5 million for automated I-94 equipment at 
     airports in New York, Newark, Seattle, San Francisco, Los 
     Angeles, Honolulu, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, and Boston.
       Earmark for activation of new and expanded prison 
     facilities in Texas, California, Mississippi, South Carolina, 
     Arkansas, Texas, West Virginia, Washington, and Ohio
       Language urging the Bureau of Prisons to favorably consider 
     development of MDTV at the Beckley Federal prison facility
       $1 million equally divided between Mount Pleasant and 
     Charleston, South Carolina police departments for computer 
     enhancements and equipment upgrades
       $3 million for the Utah Communications Agency to support 
     security and communications infrastructure upgrades to 
     counter potential terrorism threats at the 2002 Winter 
     Olympic Games, and $2 million to allow the Law Enforcement 
     Coordinating Council for the 2002 Olympics to develop and 
     support a public safety master plan
       $2 million as a grant to establish a Public Training Center 
     for First Responders at Fort McClellan, Alabama
       $3.85 million for the National White Collar Crime Center in 
     Richmond, Virginia
       Earmarks of Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund dollars for: 
     $190,000 for the Gospel Rescue Ministries of Washington, D.C. 
     to renovate the Fulton Hotel as a drug treatment center; $2 
     million for the Marshall University Forensic Science Program; 
     $2 million for a rural states management information system 
     demonstration project in Alaska; $500,000 for the Alaska 
     Native Justice Center; $1 million for the Santee-Lynches 
     Regional Council of Governments Local Law Enforcement 
     Program; $10 million for North Carolina Criminal Justice 
     Information Network for automation and security equipment; $1 
     million for the National Judicial College; Language urging 
     funding for the New Orleans-based Project Return and Chicago-
     based Family Violence Intervention Program
       $2 million for Southwest Surety Institute at New Mexico 
     State University
       $1 million for a public-private partnership demonstration 
     project in Las Vegas, Nevada, for a home for victims of 
     domestic abuse
       Language directing funding to complete design of the 
     Choctaw Indian tribal detention facility in Mississippi
       Language expressing the expectation that the National 
     Center for Forensic Science at the University of Central 
     Florida will be provided a grant for DNA identification work, 
     if warranted
       $850,000 of juvenile justice grants for the Vermont 
     Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to establish 
     a national model for youth justice boards.
       $1 million for the New Mexico prevention project.
       $200,000 for the State of Alaska for a study on child abuse 
     and criminal behavior linkage.
       $1.75 million for the Shelby County, Tennessee, Juvenile 
     Offender Transition Program.
       Direction to examine proposals and provide grants, if 
     warranted, to the following entities: Hill Renaissance 
     Partnership, Lincoln Council on Alcoholism and Drugs, 
     Hamilton Fish National Institute on School and Community 
     Violence, Low Country Children's Center, and Comprehensive 
     Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention and Juvenile Assessment 
     Center in Gainesville, Florida.


                         department of commerce

       Language urging the Economic Development Administration to 
     consider applications for grants for: Defense conversion 
     project at University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in 
     Aurora, Colorado; Passenger terminal and control tower at 
     Bowling Green/Warren County, Kentucky, regional airport; 
     Jackson Falls Heritage Riverpark in Nashua, New Hampshire; 
     Bristol Bay Native Association; Redevelopment of abandoned 
     property in Newark, New Jersey; Pacific Science Center in 
     Seattle, Washington; Rodale Center at Cedar Crest College in 
     Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania; Minority labor force initiative 
     in South Carolina; Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad 
     Commission in Arriba County, New Mexico, and Conejos County, 
     Colorado; Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts; 
     Native American manufacturer's network in Montana; National 
     Canal Museum in Easton, Pennsylvania; Cranston Street Armory 
     in Providence, Rhode Island.
       Recommendation that Little Rock, Arkansas, Minority 
     Business Development Center remain in operation.
       Recommendation that Jonesboro-Paraground, Arkansas, 
     Metropolitan Statistical Area be designated to include both 
     Craighead and Greene Counties.
       Language urging the NTIA to consider grants to University 
     of Montana and Marshall University, West Virginia.
       Language directing NTIA to fund telecommunications support 
     for the Olympic Committee Organization in Utah to ensure that 
     similar telecommunications facilities as were available at 
     the Atlanta Olympics
       $500,000 earmarked for South Carolina geodetic survey
       $300,000 earmarked for Galveston-Houston operation of 
     physical oceanographic real time system
       $1.9 million earmarked for south Florida ecosystem 
     restoration, including $1 million for Nova Southeastern 
     University for establishment of a National Coral Reef 
     Institute to conduct research on coral reefs, and $1 million 
     for the University of Hawaii for similar coral reef studies
       $450,000 for a cooperative agreement with the State of 
     South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 
     to work on the Charleston Harbor project
       Increase of $6.6 million above the request for the National 
     Estuarine Research Reserve System, which serves 22 sites in 
     18 states and Puerto Rico
       $4.7 million for the Pacific fishery information network, 
     including $1.7 million for the Alaska network
       Not less than $850,000, for the marine resources monitoring 
     assessment and prediction program of the South Carolina 
     Division of Marine Resources
       $390,000 for the Chesapeake Bay resource collection program
       $50,000 for Hawaiian monk seals
       $500,000 for the Hawaii stock management plan
       $300,000 for Alaska groundfish surveys and $5.5 million for 
     Alaska groundfish monitoring
       $410,000 for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and 
     $200,000 for the Beluga Whale Committee
       $1 million for research on Steller seals at the Alaska 
     SeaLife Center, $325,000 for similar work by the state of 
     Alaska, and $330,000 for work by the North Pacific 
     Universities Marine Mammal Consortium
       $400,000 for the NMFS in Honolulu for Pacific swordfish 
     research
       $250,000 to implementation of the state of Maine's recovery 
     plan for Atlantic salmon
       $150,000 to the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation
       $200,000 for the Island Institute to develop multispecies 
     shellfish hatchery and nursery facility to benefit Gulf of 
     Maine communities
       $3.8 million to develop a national resources center at 
     Mount Washington, New Hampshire, to demonstrate innovative 
     approaches using weather as the education link among 
     sciences, math, geography, and history
       $500,000 for the ballast water demonstration in the 
     Chesapeake Bay
       $2.3 million to reduce tsunami risks to residents and 
     visitors in Oregon, Washington, California, Hawaii, and 
     Alaska
       $3 million increase, with total earmark of $15 million, for 
     the National Undersea Research Program, equally divided 
     between east and west coast research centers, with the west 
     coast funds equally divided between the Hawaii and Pacific 
     center and the West Coast and Polar Regions center
       $1.7 million for the New England open ocean aquaculture 
     program
       $1 million for the Susquehanna River basin flood system
       $97,000 for the NOAA Cooperative Institute for Regional 
     Prediction at the University of Utah
       $150,000 to maintain staff at Fort Smith, Arkansas, to 
     improve the ability of southern Indiana to receive weather 
     warnings
       Earmarks of $88 million in NOAA construction funds for 
     specific locations in Alaska, Hawaii, South Carolina, 
     Mississippi, and others


                          department of state:

       $22 million for East-West Center (increase of $15 million), 
     and $3 million for North/South Center (increase of $1.5 
     million)


                     small business administration:

       Language stating SBA should consider funding a 
     demonstration in Vermont with the Northern New England 
     Tradeswoman, Inc.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       methamphetamine initiative

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for taking what I believe is a necessary and meaningful 
step to turn the tide on a growing epidemic in this country, 
methamphetamine abuse. Although originally confined principally to the 
Southwest, including my home State of Utah, this epidemic is now moving 
East. Congress needs to take action to stop meth abuse.
  Mr. GREGG. I could not agree more with the Senator from Utah. In my 
home State of New Hampshire, we are now experiencing our own influx of 
methamphetamine. I am seriously concerned about the effect that the 
proliferation of this drug is going to have

[[Page S8077]]

upon the children of this Nation, particularly in New Hampshire.
  Mr. HATCH. Meth abuse, unfortunately, is also rapidly becoming one of 
our top public health threats. According to the latest data released by 
SAMHSA in its ``Drug Abuse Warning Network'' report released last week 
the number of children aged 12 to 17 who have had to go to emergency 
rooms due to meth use increased well over 200 percent between 1993 and 
1995 alone. The number of deaths associated with meth has also 
increased dramatically. From 1989 to 1994, methamphetamine accounted 
for 80 percent or more of clandestine lab seizures by the DEA. 
Clandestine lab crackdowns are at an alltime high, and many more are 
going undetected. Mobile labs in rural areas of Utah, including 
numerous locations in Ogden, Provo, and the St. George area are making 
meth with virtual impunity. Local law enforcement does not have the 
manpower, resources, or technical expertise to cover such vast areas in 
a truly meaningful fashion. Federal law enforcement, most principally 
the Drug Enforcement Administration, has agents specially trained in 
the areas of methamphetamine lab take downs, but the number of such 
specialists is extremely limited, and certainly is of insufficient 
numbers to be any sort of meaningful presence in Utah, as well as the 
rest of the Rocky Mountains.
  I am deeply concerned about the Methamphetamine problem in Utah, as 
well as the rest of the Nation. In my State, distribution by Mexican 
traffickers has been expanded by using networks established in the 
cocaine, heroin, and marijuana trades. Wholesale distribution is 
typically organized into networks in major metropolitan areas, to 
include Salt Lake City. Utah has 2,500 isolated noncontrolled airstrips 
which provide a convenient means for drug smugglers to transfer 
methamphetamine to vehicles for shipment throughout the United States. 
Also, there are over 65 public airports throughout the State that are 
not manned on a 24-hour basis, but can be lit from a plane by using the 
plane's radio tuned to a specific frequency.
  Major highway systems such as I-15, I-70, and I-80 serve to 
interconnect Mexico with Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming which allows Utah 
to be an ideal transshipment point to major markets on the west coast, 
as well as Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, and other Midwestern areas. 
It also results in such illegal drugs being readily accessible 
throughout Utah.
  According to the DEA, methamphetamine seizures nationwide in 1996 
were the highest in over a decade. Not easily dissuaded, particularly 
when such large profits can be made, Mexican traffickers have begun 
obtaining the necessary precursor chemicals for methamphetamine from 
sources in Europe, China, and India. These precursor chemicals needed 
to manufacture methamphetamine drugs are available in Utah and have 
contributed to the increased consumption of the drug. Further, 
ephedrine tablets are purchased in large quantities and then converted 
to methamphetamine.
  For these reasons I believe that it is imperative that this Congress 
provide the necessary resources to the DEA to engage in a meaningful 
methamphetamine initiative. I fully support the Appropriations 
Committee's report to S. 1022 that recommends that $16,500,000 of the 
funds appropriated to the DEA be used to fund a methamphetamine 
initiative, to include an additional 90 agents and 21 support personnel 
who will be tasked with implementing a broad approach for attacking 
methamphetamine abuse in this country. I strongly encourage that some 
of these funds be applied to funding DEA agents with particularized 
methamphetamine training be stationed in Utah to combat this ever 
growing threat in my State, and to prevent the methamphetamine lab 
activities in Utah from continuing to harm other States throughout this 
Nation.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my intention that these new agents be allocated 
where they are most needed. Many States, such as New Hampshire and Utah 
are certainly experiencing the level of increased meth abuse this meth 
initiative is designed to address.


             cooper hospital's trauma reduction initiative

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to express my support for Cooper 
Hospital's Trauma Reduction Initiative.
  Cooper Hospital is located in Camden, NJ, one of the most troubled 
cities in the Nation. Between 1994 and 1995, the number of violent 
crimes declined 4 percent nationwide, while in Camden they rose 8.6 
percent. Homicides in Camden rose 28.88 percent, while homicides 
declined 6 percent nationally. With an estimated population of 82,000, 
Camden ranks as the sixth most violent city in the country when 
compared to all cities and towns.
  Cooper Hospital's Trauma Reduction Initiative links hospital staff, 
community leaders, and churches throughout Camden as the frontline of 
crisis intervention. The Trauma Reduction Initiative represents a 
community-based approach to deal with the types of violence that 
disrupt our neighborhoods and burden our health care system.
  According to Government research, by 2003, firearms will have 
surpassed auto accidents as the leading cause of injury death in the 
United States. But unlike victims of car accidents, who are almost 
always privately insured, four out of five firearm victims are 
receiving public assistance or are uninsured. Thus, taxpayers bear the 
brunt of medical costs that have grown to $4.5 billion a year in the 
past decade. Cooper Hospital's violence prevention program is designed 
to help stop the spiral of violent crime and retaliation in Camden. 
This program could serve as a model for other cities to follow.
  The Trauma Reduction Initiative has received funding from the Bureau 
of Justice Assistance. I ask my colleagues, the chairman and ranking 
member of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, if 
they agree that the Trauma Reduction Initiative is worthy of BJA's 
continued support?
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the concerns of the Senator from New Jersey 
about the disturbing amount of violent crime in Camden. I agree that, 
within the available resources, the Trauma Reduction Initiative is 
worthy of BJA's continued support.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I, too, share the concerns of the Senator from New 
Jersey about the escalating costs of firearm violence in our country. I 
agree with the chairman that, within the available resources, BJA 
should continue to support the Trauma Reduction Initiative.


                         technical corrections

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would first like to thank the 
chairman and ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the 
Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee for joining Senator Boxer and 
myself in this colloquy regarding our amendment to make technical 
corrections to title I, section 119 of the Commerce-State-Justice 
appropriations bill. This section, as amended, will allow the 
Department of Justice and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
transfer surplus real property to State and local governments for law 
enforcement, fire fighting, and rescue purposes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleague from 
California in thanking the chairman and ranking member for all their 
assistance on this issue. I would also like to extend our appreciation 
to the chairman and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, without whose suggestions this amendment would not have gone 
forward. I am very pleased to cosponsor this amendment, which modifies 
the amendment I offered in the Appropriations Committee to include the 
Department of Justice Property Transfer Act.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank my colleagues from California for their hard work 
in including this language in the bill. We all know that the police and 
fire departments are the first to respond to crises, and this change in 
law will facilitate local agencies in obtaining surplus Federal 
property for primary and specialized law enforcement and rescue 
training. I am pleased to support this change in law for the benefit of 
our communities.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I join my colleagues in recognizing the value of this 
language. I would like to ask if the Senator from California knows of 
any situations where this change in law would serve immediate benefit?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be pleased to answer that question. I was 
first made aware of the problems that current property transfer laws 
poses by the sheriff of Riverside County in southern California. The 
sheriff's office

[[Page S8078]]

has obtained, by short-term lease, a portion of March Air Reserve Base. 
The sheriff's office has been using this land for joint law enforcement 
and fire and rescue training. This legislation will allow the sheriff's 
office to apply directly to the General Services Administration, which 
will coordinate the application and approval process with the 
Department of Justice and FEMA to transfer the necessary property. Once 
again, I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation.


                  abusive and exploitative child labor

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 
Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding abusive and exploitative child 
labor.
  According to the International Labor Organization [ILO], some 250 
million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are working in developing 
countries and the number is on the rise. I strongly believe that access 
to primary education reduces the incidence of child labor around the 
world. It is my understanding that the Asia Foundation supports efforts 
to improve access to primary education.
  I would like to see some language in the conference report urging the 
Asia Foundation to continue its work in Pakistan. I know that our 
staffs' have conferred, and that you and the ranking member share my 
concern about abusive and exploitative child labor.
  Mr. GREGG. I commend the Senator for his concern, and would welcome 
any report language he has regarding the matter. Though it is outside 
the scope of the conference, I will exploit any opportunity that 
presents itself that would allow language to be inserted in the 
conference report.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Iowa has been working this issue hard, 
and I agree with the chairman.


                           Ketchikan Shipyard

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Ketchikan, AK, just north of the 
Canadian border in southeast Alaska, has recently suffered an extreme 
economic blow due to changes in Federal forest management policies. It 
is a town of just a few thousand people, and the loss of 406 jobs due 
to the closure of one of the town's major industries, a pulpmill, 
severely disrupted the community.
  The need for economic revitalization in Ketchikan is great, but the 
available opportunities are limited. One potentially important 
opportunity is provided by a local shipyard, Ketchikan Ship and 
Drydock. However, the ability of this yard to contribute to the local 
economy is limited without a significant upgrade of its ability to 
handle a variety of vessel sizes.
  It is my understanding that the subcommittee report on this 
appropriation recognizes similar situations in other areas by 
suggesting that the Economic Development Administration consider 
proposals which meet its procedures and guidelines.
  Would the distinguished managers of the bill, my friends from New 
Hampshire and South Carolina, agree that if the EDA receives a proposal 
for the Ketchikan shipyard which meets its procedures and guidelines, 
the EDA should consider that proposal and provide a grant if the latter 
is warranted?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska is 
correct. I would urge the Economic Development Administration to 
consider such a proposal that met its procedures and guidelines and 
urge it to provide a grant if it finds the proposal warranted.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I agree with the response by my friend 
from New Hampshire.


          nist funding for texas tech university wind research

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gregg, to engage in a colloquy on a 
matter of extreme importance to my State and a number of others, and 
that is the need for more research into wind and severe storm disasters 
and ways to protect people and property from catastrophic harm.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator 
from Texas and engage in a colloquy.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as you know, there have been a number 
of severe tornadoes, wind storms, hurricanes and other wind-related 
disasters in recent months which have killed scores of people and 
destroyed communities. Earlier this year, the small town of Jarrell, 
TX, experienced a tornado that killed 29 people, seriously injured many 
others, and caused millions of dollars in damage to homes and 
businesses. The President's home State of Arkansas was also hit by a 
wind disaster that resulted in loss of life. The home State of the 
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee, Senator Hollings is still 
rebuilding after the devastation of Hurricane Hugo in 1989.
  Mr. President, there is important work being done at Texas Tech 
University to help improve design construction of buildings to make 
them more resilient to windstorms. The laboratory building will include 
space to house a wind tunnel, a structural and building component 
testing lab and a material testing lab. These laboratory facilities 
will be used to develop innovative building frames and components that 
are resilient to extreme winds and windborne debris and yet are 
economically affordable. The research will also produce results to help 
cope with the environmental effects of wind erosion and dust and 
particulate generation.
  The Department of Commerce, through the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, does wind research. NIST in particular is 
engaged in research that complements the Texas Tech project.
  The Committee has provided $276,852,000 for the scientific and 
technical research and services (core programs) appropriation of NIST. 
Part of the increased amount is for continued research, development, 
application and demonstration of new building products, processes, 
technologies and methods of construction for energy-efficient and 
environmentally compatible buildings.
  Senator Gregg, do you concur that it is the intent of the committee 
to direct $3.8 million in funds provided to NIST for scientific and 
technical research and services for cooperative research between NIST 
and Texas Tech University to pursue this important wind research?
  Mr. GREGG. It is the intent of the Committee to direct $3.8 million 
of NIST's scientific and technical research and services funding 
provided in the bill for cooperative research with Texas Tech 
University. I look forward to working with the Senator from Texas to 
ensure that the additional funds provided for core programs for 
continued research, development, application and demonstration of new 
building products, processes, technologies and methods of construction 
supports cooperative wind research between NIST and Texas Tech 
University.


                   small business development centers

  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if I could get the attention of the 
distinguished manager of the bill, Commerce, Justice, State 
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg. I have a proposal 
related to small business development centers, and I'd like to get him 
to comment on it.
  Mr. GREGG. I'd be happy to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator. What I propose to do is give more 
SBDCs the tools they need to encourage small companies to start 
exporting. As the Senator knows, the SBDCs are doing a terrific job 
helping small business owners devise business plans, marketing 
strategies, and so forth, but many of them simply don't have the 
capacity to offer advice on how to export.
  We ought to try to change that, in my view. Exporting is the name of 
the game today--even for small businesses. And one way to do that would 
be to broaden access to a successful small business export promotion 
program called the International Trade Data Network, or ITDN.
  Now, what is the ITDN? The ITDN is a computer-based service that 
small business owners can use to retrieve a stunning amount of 
international trade data--compiled both from Federal Government sources 
and the private sector. With a few quick keystrokes, individuals can 
read about everything from market demographics to descriptions of 
upcoming trade missions to explanations of relevant export and import 
regulations to potential contract leads. Small businesses anxious to 
export can learn about virtually every industry and virtually every 
country.
  The ITDN was developed in 1988 by the Export Assistance Center at 
Bryant College in Smithfield, RI, and it's

[[Page S8079]]

been a big help to literally hundreds of Rhode Island's small 
businesses. In fact, 18 companies in Rhode Island use the ITDN every 
single day.
  Listen to some of these endorsements from Rhode Island business 
owners. One said, ``The information made available through the ITDN is 
an integral part of our Pre-Entry Level Market Analysis.'' Another 
reported, ``I find the ITDN to be a state-of-the-art, user friendly 
software that is a one-stop shop for international information. It is a 
vital tool for businesses today that need to survive in a global 
environment.''
  But right now, only 30 or so of our 960 Small Business Development 
Centers have direct access to the ITDN. So what I'd like to do is 
expand the program, so that SBDCs all across the country are connected 
to it. Specifically what I have in mind is converting the ITDN to an 
internet-based website, and establishing an Interactive Video Trade 
Conferencing Center at each State's lead small business assistance 
office. My proposal would also make the ITDN technology available to 
the Approximately 2,500 SBDC sub-centers across the country.
  As I understand the situation, SBDCs are already authorized to 
conduct export promotion activities under Section 21 of the Small 
Business Act. In fact, representatives of Bryant College met with the 
SBA's Associate Administrator for the SBDC program earlier this year to 
discuss this proposal, and received a very positive response. For one 
reason or another, however, the SBA has been reluctant to dedicate any 
money to this purpose.
  The 1988 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriation bill contains $75.8 
million for the SBDC program, an increase of some $2.3 million over the 
1997 funding level. In talking with the folks at the Export Assistance 
Center at Bryant College, it's my understanding that expanding the ITDN 
could be done over 2 years, with a first year cost of about $925,000. 
I'd ask the distinguished manager if I could get his endorsement of my 
proposal.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's interest in this matter, and I 
agree that we ought to look for ways to increase American small 
businesses' capacity to export.
  Having looked at the Senator from Rhode Island's proposal, and 
listened to his remarks, I think that the ITDN program could be an 
excellent tool for opening international markets. I strongly encourage 
the Small Business Administration to make funds available for the 
expansion of the ITDN in fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I want to thank my friend from New Hampshire for his 
support for this initiative.


                    ``made in the usa'' advertising

  Mr. KOHL. I understand that the FTC has proposed to weaken the 
standard for ``Made in the U.S.A.'' advertising from ``all to virtually 
all'' U.S. content to ``substantially all'' U.S. content. The proposal 
sets forth two alternative safe harbors for ``Made in the U.S.A.'' 
claims: 75 percent U.S. content--U.S. manufacturing costs represent 75 
percent of the total manufacturing costs for the product and the 
product was last substantially transformed in the U.S. or; two level 
substantial transformation--The product was last substantially 
transformed in the United States and all significant inputs were last 
substantially transformed in the United States.
  I also understand that the new proposed guidelines would have the 
effect of allowing products made with 25 percent or more foreign labor 
and foreign materials to be labeled ``Made in the U.S.A.'' In some 
cases, the FTC's proposed guidelines would allow products made entirely 
with foreign materials and foreign components to be labeled ``Made in 
the U.S.A.''
  The ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label, a time-honored symbol of American 
pride and craftsmanship, is an extremely valuable asset to 
manufacturers. Allowing this label to be applied to goods not wholly 
made in America will encourage companies to ship U.S. jobs overseas 
because they can take advantage of the cheaper labor markets while 
promoting their products as ``Made in the U.S.A.'' For products not 
wholly made in the U.S.A., companies already can make a truthful claim 
about whatever U.S. content their products have--e.g., ``Made in the 
U.S.A. of 75 percent U.S. component parts'' or ``Assembled in the 
U.S.A. from imported and domestic parts''. However, if manufacturers 
seek to voluntarily promote their products as ``Made in the U.S.A.'' 
they must be honest in that promotion and only apply the ``Made in the 
U.S.A.'' label to products wholly made in the U.S.A.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the concerns expressed by my colleague on 
the Appropriations Committee and share the Senator's concerns on the 
need to protect American jobs. My subcommittee has jurisdiction over 
the FTC and you can be assured that we will closely watch any action 
taken by the FTC regarding the current standard for ``Made in the 
U.S.A.''
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I too want to assure the Senator that our Subcommittee 
will closely monitor any actions on the FTC's part to change the ``Made 
in the U.S.A.'' designation. The ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label should 
continue to assure consumers that they are purchasing a product wholly 
made by American workers.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for their 
comments on this important issue. I am reassured by their interest in 
this matter.


                 jefferson parish communications system

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to discuss with the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, the distinguished ranking 
member of the subcommittee, Senator Hollings, and my distinguished 
colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, an important safety issue 
facing Jefferson Parish, LA.
  As my colleagues know, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office is one 
of the most progressive and notable law enforcement offices in the 
country. Unfortunately, they have been forced to use a conventional 450 
MHz UHF radio system that is far too small and antiquated to handle 
current traffic volumes and to provide the secure and varied 
communications capabilities necessary in today's law enforcement 
environment. Replacing this old system with a new 800 MHz digital 
system is necessary to ensure the safety of its residents and guests, 
and to enhance the operational efficiencies of the sheriff's office.
  Hurricane Danny recently demonstrated the dire need for this new 
communications system. Grand Isle, off the southern-most part of 
Jefferson Parish, is a barrier island with approximately 2,500 
residents. There is, however, only one road leading from Grand Isle to 
the mainland. When it appeared this road was at risk because of Danny's 
70-75 mph winds and high tides, the sheriff's office decided to 
evacuate the island. Unfortunately, before the island could be safely 
evacuated, one of the radio towers was damaged and rendered inoperable 
by the hurricane. The sheriff's office was forced to borrow cellular 
telephones in order to evacuate the island.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator makes a fine point, and I would like to add 
that the new communications system would also support inter-operability 
with most of the adjoining parishes and the city of New Orleans. This 
would mean expanded emergency capabilities throughout the region which 
are vital to the entire State of Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as my colleague knows, the sheriff's 
office of Jefferson Parish has sought assistance in the past and has 
helped to highlight the need for Federal assistance to help local law 
enforcement agencies replace outdated communications equipment. In 
fact, the sheriff's office was influential in getting a discretionary 
grant program created in 1994 that would provide funds for these types 
of activities. However, Congress has consistently earmarked these 
funds, leaving no funds for grant applicants.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office 
has demonstrated its commitment to this project by allocating over 50 
percent of the cost of this initiative in a dedicated escrow account. 
In a competition for funds, the sheriff's office, with its well 
developed procurement strategy and available matching funds, would no 
doubt prevail as a deserving candidate.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senators from Louisiana for bringing this 
issue to my attention. I understand that the new communication system 
for the sheriff's office in Jefferson Parish is a priority and I will 
give this request my attention and consideration in conference.

[[Page S8080]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I too, thank the Senators from Louisiana and believe 
that this is a project worthy of attention in conference.
  Mr. BREAUX. I greatly appreciate the assistance of the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee in this matter. I would 
like to thank them and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, 
for joining me in this colloquy.


     odyssey maritime discovery center exhibits and lecture series

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to urge the chairman and 
ranking member of the Commerce, State Justice Appropriations 
Subcommittee to join me in directing the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, through the Information and Analyses, Resource Information 
account, to provide $250,000 to the Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center 
in Seattle, WA.
  The Odyssey Center is a new educational learning center opening in 
July, 1998. This Center will establish an educational link between the 
everyday maritime, fishing, trade, and environmental activities that 
occur in the waters of Puget Sound and Alaska, and the lessons students 
learn in the classroom. Through high-tech and interactive exhibits, 
over 300,000 children and adults per year will discover that what 
happens in our waters, on our coast lines, at our ports affects our 
State's and Nation's economic livelihood, environmental well-being, and 
international competitiveness. The Center wishes to establish an 
exhibits and lecture series to link the public, particularly school 
children, with the maritime, fishing, trade, and environmental 
industries. Named in honor of the great Senator of Washington, Warren 
G. Magnuson, this series would begin in 1998 and would serve as an 
educational resource on the sustainable development, uses, and 
protection of our seas and coastal waters. This series would provide a 
fitting tribute to Senator Magnuson, the founder of this Nation's 
Federal fisheries policies and the namesake of our principal fisheries 
management law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Washington in 
supporting this exhibits and lecture series at the Odyssey Maritime 
Discovery Center and believe the National Marine Fisheries Service 
should provide $250,000 through the Information and Analyses, Resource 
Information account. I too feel this series will provide a fitting 
tribute to the former Senator from Washington and an important learning 
tool for young people.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I also join the Senator from Washington in 
supporting this lecture series. I think Senator Magnuson would be 
honored by this educational effort to teach children about the ways of 
the sea, and the economic and ecological ways of life that depend on 
it.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee for their support and interest.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I join in support of this effort on behalf 
of the Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center and I applaud Senator Murray's 
efforts on the Center's behalf.


                        women's business centers

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President. On June 12, I introduced in behalf of 
myself and Senator Bond, along with 24 other cosponsors, a bill to 
strengthen the Small Business Administration's [SBA] women's business 
centers program. This bill, S. 888, the ``Women's Business Centers Act 
of 1997,'' reflects our commitment for a stronger and more dynamic 
program for women-owned businesses.
  I am pleased that the Small Business Committee has included the text 
of this bill into its 3-year reauthorization of the Small Business Act. 
It is anticipated that this reauthorization bill will be considered by 
the Senate within the next few months. The language in the 
reauthorization bill, as stated in the ``Women's Business Centers Act 
of 1997,'' increases the annual funding authorization for the women's 
business centers to $8 million from the present level of $4 million, 
authorizes the centers to receive funding for 5 years rather than the 
present 3 years, changes the matching Federal to non-Federal funding 
formula, and enables organizations receiving funds at the date of 
enactment to extend their program from 3 to 5 years.
  Since the Small Business Committee's reauthorization bill has not yet 
been considered by the Senate, the additional funds for the women's 
business centers' program are not included in S. 1022. I do want, 
however, to thank Senator Gregg, Chairman of the Commerce, State, 
Justice, and Judiciary Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, for providing full funding of the authorized $4 million for 
1998. This is most appreciated by all of us who support the women's 
business centers' activities, and it is especially important since the 
House has requested $1 million less for this program.
  It will be most beneficial if the Small Business reauthorization bill 
is considered and passed in the Senate and House prior to conference on 
this appropriations measure. I draw my colleagues' attention to this 
issue because absent the higher authorized funds of $8 million for the 
women's centers' program, it means in 1998 we may not be able to 
achieve the expansion of this program as we intended. There will be 
insufficient funds to expand the program into States who presently do 
not have women's centers and existing programs cannot extend their 
programs from 3 to 5 years. This is a serious problem because we are 
well aware of the positive benefits of the women's business centers in 
helping women entrepreneurs, the fastest growing group of new small 
businesses in the United States. These business centers are able to 
leverage public and private resources to help their clients develop new 
businesses or expand existing ones, and their services are absolutely 
essential for the successful and continued growth of this sector of our 
economy.

  I am also concerned that because there are insufficient funds to 
expand the women's business centers' program, existing centers will not 
be able to extend their activities from the present 3-year grant 
program to a 5-year schedule. These existing centers in approximately 
29 States have proven track records of support to women entrepreneurs. 
The Office of Women's Business Ownership within the SBA will continue 
its administration of the overall program and will be able to develop a 
few new sites in States that do not have centers; however, the office 
is not yet authorized to extend funding an additional 2 years for 
existing sites. This is most regrettable because these successful 
existing centers desperately need these small amounts of funds to 
continue their professional assistance to their women-owned business 
clients.
  Mr. President, I want to once again go on record that I am 
dissatisfied that the SBA has not given appropriate attention to the 
women's business program. It has failed to provide sufficient 
professional personnel to the Office of Women's Business Ownership in 
order to carry out its important tasks. It has repeatedly requested 
less funding than authorized for the program despite the fact that this 
is one of the most successful of all SBA programs. To my knowledge, it 
has never come to Congress and requested additional monies for the 
program; instead, it has expected Congress to do SBA's work in 
trumpeting the successes of this small but vital program. I find it 
most discouraging that while we in Congress are well aware of the 
outstanding work of the women's business centers--and the 
administration's repeatedly publicized the success stories last year--
there appears to be minimal support within SBA for expanding the work 
of this very small program. This is a loss to the agency, and it is 
most assuredly a loss to countless thousands of women entrepreneurs, 
let alone a loss to our overall national economy.
  We must keep in mind that the funds in this bill for the women's 
business centers reflect those appropriated in 1997, and, therefore, 
the expansion of this program as envisioned in S. 888, the ``Women's 
Business Centers Act of 1997'' and the reauthorization of the Small 
Business Act, may be delayed. As evidenced by cosponsorship of S. 888, 
a fourth of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, supports expansion of 
the women's business centers' program. We need to be aware of the 
consequences of this and do everything we possibly can to provide the 
support this critical and highly successful program needs in the 
future. Thank you.


                     The Vermont World Trade Office

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to highlight 
a

[[Page S8081]]

program in my State which I believe is a model the Small Business 
Administration [SBA] should consider investing in. Small businesses are 
the driving force of Vermont's economy. An important reason for their 
success in the State has been the development of a healthy export 
market for the goods they produce. Forty percent of Vermont companies, 
employing some 70,000 Vermonters, are engaged in some degree of export 
trade. In 1995, Vermont created and funded the Vermont World Trade 
Office [WTO] to provide technical assistance to Vermont businesses and 
information on foreign trade opportunities. The office has been 
overwhelmed by requests from companies interested in exploring trade 
opportunities. To meet that demand and make the office more convenient 
to Vermont businesses, the WTO hopes to open satellite offices in other 
parts of the State, expand services and offer additional seminars for 
interested businesses. Funding from the SBA would make this expansion 
possible. I believe that a modest investment by SBA would yield a 
valuable demonstration of the importance of export assistance in 
building and expanding markets for small businesses. Does the Senator 
from New Hampshire agree that this would be an appropriate use of SBA 
funding?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
bringing this project to my attention. I agree that many small 
businesses do not have adequate access to information on building an 
export market for their goods. A demonstration of the importance of 
this assistance by the Vermont World Trade Office would benefit other 
States considering a similar system. I urge the SBA to consider 
providing the Vermont World Trade Office with $150,000 to conduct such 
a demonstration.


                           violence institute

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to express my support for the University of 
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's [UMDNJ] Violence Institute, 
which provides valuable assistance to our efforts to curb violent 
behavior in all aspects of our society. The Violence Institute's 
programs are not directed solely at violent behavior of a criminal 
nature, but also focus on issues of domestic violence, and violence 
against women and children. I want to note that the Violence Institute 
was one of only a handful of projects recommended for special funding 
in the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill.
  I ask my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators Gregg and 
Hollings, if they agree that the Violence Institute's initiatives to 
curb violent behavior are consistent with the Department of Justice's 
objectives and that such programs are worthy of the Department's 
support?
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the concerns of my colleague from New Jersey 
about reducing violent behavior in our society, and I agree that the 
Violence Institute provides valuable assistance in addressing the 
epidemic of violent crime in the United States. Successful programs 
that provide research into the basic causes of violence, and that 
develop initiatives to prevent the spread of violent crime, can be 
valuable tools in our Nation's fight against crime. I believe that 
programs such as the ones conducted at the Violence Institute are 
worthy of the Department's support.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I, too, share the concerns of the Senator from New 
Jersey about violent crime in our society. The Violence Institute's 
research in this area makes a significant contribution to the 
Department of Justice's efforts to address this problem, and I agree 
with the chairman that programs like the Violence Institute are worthy 
of the Department's support.


           communications assistance for law enforcement act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Chairman Gregg and the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary recognize in 
the Report for S. 1022 that the ``pace of technological change in the 
telecommunications industry poses enormous challenge'' both to law 
enforcement and national security agencies in conducting court-
authorized wiretaps and ``in the conduct of foreign counterintelligence 
and terrorism investigations in the United States.'' The Communications 
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA], which I sponsored in the 
103d Congress, addressed this public safety and national security 
problem, after considerable debate and hearings in the Judiciary 
Committees of both the House and the Senate. I commend the chairman and 
the subcommittee for recognizing ``that digital telephony is a top law 
enforcement priority.''
  CALEA authorizes $500 million for the Attorney General to pay 
telecommunications carriers for costs associated with modifying the 
embedded base of equipment, services, and facilities to comply with 
CALEA. Nevertheless, S. 1022 does not include any funding for this law, 
based upon the Committee's finding ``that the Bureau has adequate 
resources available.''
  Moreover, the report recommends that no funds be expended for CALEA 
until the following requirements are met: First, the Bureau creates a 
working group with industry officials approved by the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees, and second, the working group develops a new 
``more rational, reasonable, and cost-effective CALEA implementation 
plan'' that is satisfactory to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  Would Chairman Gregg agree with me that in addition to the 
Appropriations Committees, the Judiciary Committees of both the House 
and Senate, which authorized CALEA, should also be involved in 
approving the industry officials on the working group and any plan 
provided by the working group?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes. It is appropriate for the Committees on the Judiciary 
of both the House and the Senate to be involved and that was the 
intention of the committee when it prepared the report.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. I agree with Senators Leahy and Gregg.
  Mr. LEAHY. This addresses one of the concerns I have with the 
report's new requirements for expenditures of money for CALEA 
implementation.
  I am also concerned about whether creation of the working group 
tasked with developing a CALEA implementation plan will delay, rather 
than facilitate, implementation of this law and compliance by 
telecommunications carriers with the four law enforcement requirements 
enumerated in this important law. Indeed, the report places no time 
constraints on creation of this working group or on when the Bureau-
working group implementation plan must be submitted to the specified 
committees.
  Further delay in implementation of CALEA poses risks for the 
effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies. As the committee 
acknowledges, they are already encountering problems in executing 
court-authorized wiretaps. The industry, with the input of law 
enforcement, has drafted a specifications standard for CALEA. I am 
concerned that objections from the Bureau over elements in that 
proposed standard are delaying its adoption. I would like to see the 
Bureau accept that standard and get on with CALEA implementation.
  I am also concerned that the working group proposed by the committee 
will work behind closed doors, without the accountability that CALEA 
intended. We should make sure that any meetings of the working group 
will be open to privacy advocates and other interested parties.
  I fully appreciate that questions have been raised about how the 
implementation of CALEA is proceeding. That is why, over a year ago, 
Senator Specter and I asked the Digital Privacy and Security Working 
Group, a diverse coalition of industry, privacy and government reform 
organizations, for its views on implementation of CALEA, and other 
matters. We circulated to our colleagues on June 20, 1997, a copy of 
this group's ``Interim Report: Communications Privacy in the Digital 
Age.'' The report recommends that hearings be held to examine 
implementation of CALEA, how the Bureau intends to spend CALEA funds, 
and the viability of CALEA's compliance dates. This recommendation is a 
good one.
  We should air these significant questions at an open hearing before 
the authorizing Committees. I would rather see the authorizing 
Committees work in that fashion with the Appropriations Committees to 
make funds immediately available and insure those

[[Page S8082]]

funds are spent to establish a minimum standard that serves law 
enforcement's pressing needs, without some of the enhancements being 
proposed by the FBI that industry claims are delaying the process of 
implementation. The committees should insist on some priorities in 
terms of geographic need and capability. I think we could resolve this 
with a little oversight, and return to the spirit of reasonableness 
that characterize the drafting of CALEA.


                         technical corrections

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the following are technical corrections to 
the fiscal year 1998 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary and related agencies appropriations report: First, under 
``Title I--Department of Justice'', on page 7, line 3, delete 
$17,251,958,000; and insert $17,278,990,000; on page 7, line 6, delete 
$826,955,000 and insert $853,987,000; and second, under ``Title V--
Related Agencies, Small Business Administration'', on page 126, line 
22, delete $8,756,000 and insert $8,756,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 979

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now adopt 
the managers' amendment, which is the pending amendment No. 979.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 979) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 999 through 1021, En Bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I now send a series of amendments to the 
desk and ask unanimous consent that they be considered read and agreed 
to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any 
statements relating to these amendments be inserted at this point in 
the Record, with all of the above occurring, en bloc.
  These amendments have been cleared by both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 999 through 1021) were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 999

       At the appropriate place, insert the following: 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Economic 
     Development Administration is directed to transfer funds 
     obligated and awarded to the Butte-Silver Bow Consolidated 
     Local Government as Project Number 05-01-02822 to the Butte 
     Local Development Corporation Revolving Loan Fund to be 
     administered by the Butte Local Development Corporation, such 
     funds to remain available until expended.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1000

   (Purpose: To require a non-profit public affairs organization to 
    register with the Attorney General if the organization receives 
 contributions in excess of $10,000 from foreign governments in any 12-
                             month period)

       On page 65, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 120. (a) Section 1(d) of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(d)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``The term `agent of a foreign 
     principal' '' the following: ``(1) includes an entity 
     described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 that receives, directly or indirectly, from a 
     government of a foreign country (or more than one such 
     government) in any 12-month period contributions in a total 
     amount in excess of $10,000, and that conducts public policy 
     research, education, or information dissemination and that is 
     not included in any other subsection of 170(b)(1)(A), and 
     (2)''.
       (b) Section 3(d) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 613(d)) is amended 
     by inserting ``, other than an entity referred to in section 
     1(d)(1),'' after ``any person''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is basically a sunshine 
provision that would require nonprofit public affairs organizations to 
register with the Attorney General if such organizations receive 
contributions in excess of $10,000 from foreign governments in any 12-
month period.
  This provision would not affect churches, hospitals, or other 
nonprofit, 501(c)3 organizations which are not focused on public policy 
matters. In fact, this amendment only affects those public policy 
nonprofit organizations that do accept foreign government money.
  Furthermore, this amendment does not prohibit or object to such 
foreign government contributions. It only requires that organizations 
publicly acknowledge such contributions--when they are over a threshold 
of $10,000 a year from all foreign government sources--by registering 
this information with the Attorney General under the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act.
  Mr. President, I'm sure that many of my colleagues may be wondering 
what triggered the need for this legislation. Let me state that this 
amendment is not directed at any particular organization or nonprofit 
entity. This is simply a common-sense provision that will help make the 
public affairs environment healthier by the disclosure of when foreign 
government money is supporting a given nonprofit public affairs 
organization and when not.
  These nonprofit organizations are organized for the public good and 
they are subsidized by the American people. To the degree that these 
organizations are weighing in on important public policy matters--
particularly on our Nation's economic policies and defense strategies, 
but also in other public policy areas--and are receiving foreign 
government contributions to support their activities, I believe that 
the American public has the right to know that such foreign government 
contributions have been made to that organization.
  Members of Congress and their staff meet regularly with 
representatives of many nonprofit public affairs organizations--which 
are permitted to engage in public education activities on the Hill. But 
while some organizations like the Japan Economic Institute and Korea 
Economic Institute are quite straightforward about their primary 
funding sources and register with the Attorney General that their 
sources of funding are foreign governments, some other nonprofit public 
affairs organizations actually try to keep from public view the fact 
that they receive substantial foreign government revenue.
  When these groups meet with Members of Congress and staff, mail 
information all around the country, and organize public affairs events 
without ever disclosing the fact that their funding comes from other 
countries' national governments, something is wrong.
  Mr. President, this amendment has a different target than the 
discussions going on about campaign finance reform. It is focused on a 
rather narrow window in the law which allows some nonprofits to be 
bolstered by foreign government funds while not having to be upfront 
with the broader public.
  I believe that our public policy process can only benefit by the 
disclosure that this legislation would require. And I trust that my 
colleagues will agree and hope that they will support this amendment 
which I am offering today.


                           amendment no. 1001

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . The Office of Management and Budget shall 
     designate the Jonesboro-Paragould, AR Metropolitan 
     Statistical Area in lieu of the Jonesboro, AR Metropolitan 
     Statistical Area. The Jonesboro-Paragould, AR Metropolitan 
     Statistical Area shall include both Craighead County, AR and 
     Greene County, AR, in their entirety.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1002

       On page 29 of the bill, on line 18, before the ``:'' insert 
     the following: ``, of which $25,000,000 shall be for grants 
     to states for programs and activities to enforce state laws 
     prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors or the 
     purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, of the funds appropriated for law 
enforcement grants in the bill before us, my amendment would ensure 
that $25 million would be provided for grants to states for programs 
and activities to enforce state laws regarding youth access to alcohol. 
This amendment adds no money to the bill and needs no offset.
  All states prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. In 
addition, thee are a range of other laws regarding youth access to 
alcohol that states may have on the books. For instance, some states, 
in addition to prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverage to minors, 
have laws prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, 
and still others ban possession of alcoholic beverages by minors.
  Mr. President, just today in The Washington Post there is an article 
regarding a sting operation in Arlington County in establishments that 
sell alcohol to minors. According to the officer in charge of the 
operation, minors purchased alcoholic beverages without any kind of 
I.D. check in 57 percent of the establishments visited. This is a

[[Page S8083]]

disgrace, Mr. President, and, I am afraid, a not uncommon occurrence. I 
concur wholeheartedly with a quote of Eric, who is 19 years old and who 
participated in the sting operation. According to Eric, ``We've figured 
out why we have an underage drinking problem.'' With the media and 
advertisements besieging our nation's youth with unrealistic messages 
about alcohol consumption combined with insufficient enforcement of 
laws already on the books, what you wind up with is, indeed, an 
``underage drinking problem.'' The article concludes by saying that 
County officials even warned establishments that they would be using 
underage people to buy alcohol, and, still, 57 percent of the time the 
underage participants in the operation were able to purchase alcohol 
without challenge. What would the percentage have been had the letters 
not been sent? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article 
from The Washington Post be printed into the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Alcohol Sales to Minors Targeted--170 of 294 Businesses Sold to Teen 
                                Testers

               [From the Washington Post, July 24, 1997]

                         (By Brooke A. Masters)

       When the Arlington County police decided to crack down on 
     restaurants, hotels and stores that sell alcohol to minors, 
     they were shocked by the results.
       Since mid-June, they have sent 18- and 19-year-old testers 
     to 294 establishments, and the testers were able to buy booze 
     at 170 of them. Servers and clerks failed to check 
     identification at everything from the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to 
     two out of three restaurants in the Fashion Centre at 
     Pentagon City to dozens of small convenience stores.
       ``We're making purchases at 57 percent of the places we go 
     to. It's really absurd,'' said Lt. Thomas Hoffman, who is 
     overseeing the sting. ``We figured we'd get 30 percent.''
       Eric, a 19-year-old Virginia Tech sophomore who 
     participates in the stings, said, ``We've figured out why we 
     have an underage drinking problem.''
       Eric, who is not being fully identified because he's still 
     out trying to buy alcohol, and his fellow student aides wear 
     recording devices when they enter a store or a restaurant. 
     They carry no identification, so stores and restaurants can't 
     claim that the testers provided fake IDs.
       In restaurants, the students order drinks, and county 
     police officers take over once the alcohol arrives, Hoffman 
     said. They pour the drinks into evidence bottles, take 
     pictures of the server and hand out arrest warrants.
       In stores, the students take beer or wine up to the 
     counter, pay for it and leave. Then an officer goes in and 
     makes an arrest, he said. Often, the employees claim that 
     they usually check ID or that the tester is a regular. The 
     employees all have been charged with serving alcohol to a 
     minor, a misdemeanor.
       At Hard Times Cafe in Clarendon, the young female tester 
     came in with an older man, and the server ``looked at the guy 
     and assumed he's her father and he wouldn't let her drink 
     under age,'' said Su Carlson, the general manager. ``We were 
     wrong. But it's slightly entrapment. It's better to put an 
     undercover person in an establishment, and if they see 
     someone underaged drink, ID them.''
       The sting also has caught four underage people selling 
     alcohol, which also is illegal, Hoffman said. One of those 
     caught was a 10-year-old working beside her father at a 
     family-run store, he said.
       Testers have revisited 12 stores and restaurants after 
     busting employees a first time, and two of them, a Giant 
     pharmacy and a CVS drugstore, failed to card a second time, 
     police records show.
       ``We are constantly educating our people about selling 
     alcohol to minors with training sessions, booklets and 
     videos,'' Giant Vice President Barry Scher said. ``But we 
     have 5,000 checkers, and we do the best we can.''
       The Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has 
     started administrative proceedings against 29 establishments 
     where arrests have been made, and that's just the beginning. 
     ``It is our intention to file a charge against each and every 
     establishment,'' said Philip Disharoon, assistant special 
     agent in charge of the Alexandria/Arlington ABC office.
       The sting, while it is Arlington's first in recent years, 
     is not unprecedented in the Washington area. In 1994, 
     Montgomery County sent underage drinkers to 25 county hotels 
     and eventually cited 14 businesses for selling alcohol to 
     minors in hotel rooms.
       Nor did the operation come out of the blue: Arlington 
     officials sent letters to all licensed stores, restaurants 
     and hotels in April warning that they would be using underage 
     people to buy alcohol.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, alcohol is the drug used most by teens with 
devastating consequences. According to statistics compiled by the 
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, among children 
between the ages of 16 and 17, 69.3 percent have at one point in their 
lifetimes experimented with alcohol. As I consistently remind my 
colleagues, in the last month, approximately 8 percent of the nation's 
eighth graders have been drunk. Eighth graders are 13 years old, Mr. 
President! Junior and senior high school students drink 35 percent of 
all wine coolers and consume 1.1 billion cans of beer a year. And I 
will repeat what is common knowledge to us all--every state has a law 
prohibiting the sale of alcohol to individuals under the age of 21. 
Knowing this, how is it then that two out of every three teenagers who 
drink report that they can buy their own alcoholic beverages? As if the 
dangers of youth alcohol consumption are not bad enough, statistics 
have shown that alcohol is a gateway to other drugs such as marijuana 
and cocaine.
  Drinking impairs one's judgment and when mixed with teenage driving 
there are too often lethal results. In 1995, there were 2,206 alcohol-
related fatalities of children between the ages of 15 and 20. For many 
years, I have taken the opportunity when addressing groups of youth 
West Virginians to warn them about the dangers of alcohol, and I have 
supported legislative efforts to discourage people, particularly young 
people, from drinking any alcohol. I am proud to have sponsored an 
amendment two years ago which requires states to pass zero-tolerance 
laws that will make it illegal for persons under the age of 21 to drive 
a motor vehicle if they have a blood alcohol level greater than .02 
percent. This legislation helps to save lives and sends a message to 
our nation's youth that drinking and driving is wrong, that it is a 
violation of the law, and that it will be appropriately punished.
  Our children are besieged with media messages that create the 
impression that alcohol can help to solve life's problems, lead to 
popularity, and enhance athletic skills. These messages coupled with 
insufficient enforcement of laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol 
by minors give our nation's youth the impression that it is okay for 
them to drink. This impression has deadly consequences. In the three 
leading causes of death for 15 to 24 year olds, accidents, homicides, 
and suicides, alcohol is a factor. Efforts to curb the sale of alcohol 
to minors have high payoffs in helping to prevent children from 
drinking and driving death or injury.
  There is a link between alcohol consumption and increased violence 
and crime, and I believe that directing funding to programs to enforce 
underage drinking and sale-to-minors laws will have a positive effect 
on efforts to address juvenile crime. According to the Center on 
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, on college 
campuses, 95 percent of violent crime is alcohol-related and in 90 
percent of campus rapes that are reported, alcohol is a factor. 31.9 
percent of youth under the age of 18 in long-term, state operated 
juvenile institutions were under the influence of alcohol at the time 
of their arrest. These statistics are frightening and they need to be 
addressed.
  This amendment will send a clear message to states that the federal 
government recognizes that enforcement of underage drinking laws is an 
important priority and that we are willing to back that message up with 
funds to assist states in their efforts. It is not good enough to 
simply urge better enforcement. We must provide the resources.
  In addition, Mr. President, I would like to say to my good friend, 
the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, that I intend 
to work with him when S. 10, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender 
Act of 1997, is being reauthorized and before the Senate in order to 
authorize funding for this program in the coming fiscal years.
  I call on my colleagues to support this amendment which will help 
states and localities better enforce youth alcohol laws and protect our 
children.


                           amendment no. 1003

       On page 86, line 3 after ``Secretary of Commerce.'' insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 211. In addition to funds provided elsewhere in this 
     Act for the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration Information Infrastructure Grants program, 
     $10,490,000 is available until expended: Provided, That this 
     amount shall be offset proportionately by reductions in 
     appropriations provided for the Department of Commerce in 
     Title II of this Act, provided amounts provided: Provided 
     further, That no

[[Page S8084]]

     reductions shall be made from any appropriations made 
     available in this Act for the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology and National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration public broadcasting facilities, 
     planning and construction.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1004

       On page 29 of the bill, line 2, after ``Center'' insert the 
     following: ``, of which $100,000 shall be available for a 
     grant to Roberts County, South Dakota; and of which $900,000 
     shall be available for a grant to the South Dakota Division 
     of Criminal Investigation for the procurement of equipment 
     for law enforcement telecommunications, emergency 
     communications, and the state forensic laboratory''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1005

 Purpose: To improve the bill by amending section 305 to realign Guam 
   and the Northern Mariana Islands with the United States Court of 
                    Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit)

       On page 93, strike the matter between lines 14 and 15 and 
     insert the following:

California, Nevada.'';.................................................

       On page 93, strike the matter between lines 17 and 18 and 
     insert the following:

Alaska, Arizona, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern Mariana .......
  Islands, Oregon, Washington.''.

       On page 94, strike lines 14 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) is in California or Nevada is assigned as a circuit 
     judge on the new ninth circuit;
       (2) is in Alaska, Arizona, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 
     Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington is assigned as a 
     circuit judge on the twelfth circuit; and''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1006

 (Purpose: Sense of the Senate regarding half a century of service to 
                             U.S. taxpayer)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE EXEMPLARY SERVICE 
                   OF JOHN J. R. BERG TO THE UNITED STATES.

       Whereas, John H. R. Berg began his service to the United 
     States Government working for the United States Army at the 
     age of fifteen after fleeing Nazi persecution in Germany 
     where his father died in the Auschwitz concentration camp; 
     and,
       Whereas, John H. R. Berg's dedication to the United States 
     Government was further exhibited by his desire to become a 
     United States citizen, a goal that was achieved in 1981, 35 
     years after he began his commendable service to the United 
     States; and,
       Whereas, since 1949, John H. R. Berg has been employed by 
     the United States Embassy in Paris where he is currently the 
     Chief of the Visitor's and Travel Unit, And, this year has 
     supported over 10,700 official visitors, 500 conferences, and 
     over 15,000 official and unofficial reservations; and,
       Whereas, John H. R. Berg's reputation for ``accomplishing 
     the impossible'' through his dedication, efficiency and 
     knowledge has become legend in the Foreign Service; and,
       Whereas, John H. R. Berg has just completed 50 years of 
     outstanding service to the United States Government with the 
     United States Department of State,
       Therefore Be It Resolved, it is the Sense of the Senate 
     that John H. R. Berg deserves the highest praise from the 
     Congress for his steadfast devotion, caring leadership, and 
     lifetime of service of the United States Government.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President it is my great pleasure to offer this sense 
of the Senate to recognize and commend John H.R. Berg for 50 years of 
service to the U.S. Government on behalf of myself and Senator Warner. 
Mr. Berg's employment with the U.S. Government began at age 15 working 
for the U.S. Army in 1946. From July 1947 to February 1949 he worked 
with the American Graves Registration Command in Paris.
  In July 1949, Mr. Berg began his employment with the U.S. Embassy in 
Paris. Currently, he is the chief of the visitors and travel unit in 
our Embassy in Paris. Currently, he is the chief of the visitors and 
travel unit in our Embassy in Paris. So far this year, as chief of the 
Embassy's travel and visitors office, Mr. Berg and his staff of three 
have supported over 10,700 official visitors, 500 conferences, and over 
15,000 official and unofficial reservations. The position entails 
coordinating all travel, transportation, housing control rooms and 
airport formalities for visits and conferences. Mr. Berg's dedication, 
efficiency, and wide range of useful host government and private sector 
contacts have been invaluable to the Embassy and the U.S. Government. 
His support efforts, personal interest, and ability to accomplish the 
impossible have become legend in the Foreign Service and to those of us 
who know his work personally.
  I know I speak for those who have worked with Mr. Berg when I say 
that he has devoted his life to providing dedicated, faithful, and 
loyal service to the U.S. Government. He willingly and cheerfully works 
long hours--evenings, weekends and holidays--to ensure that our visits 
are handled in the most skillful and efficient manner possible. And he 
has received five Department of State Meritorious Honor Awards for his 
outstanding work.
  A little known fact about John Berg was that he was a stateless 
person at the beginning of his service to the U.S. Government. He was 
born in Germany in 1930, but lost his German citizenship in 1943 due to 
Nazi Jewish persecution. After his father was deported to Auschwitz, he 
and his mother with a small group of brave Jews, hid in Berlin from the 
Gestapo until the end of the war. The heroism they exhibited and the 
dangers they faced are documented in the book, ``The Last Jews of 
Berlin,'' by Leonard Gross. His father died in the concentration camp. 
And after World War II, John Berg moved to France where he began 
working for the American Government, and has now completed 50 years of 
service to the U.S. Government. For all his adult life, John Berg's 
most fervent desire was to become a U.S. citizen. That goal was 
realized, and he was sworn in as an American citizen in 1981.
  Mr. President I cannot think of a better role model for those in the 
public sector. Therefore, I believe that John Berg deserves the 
absolute highest praise from the President and the Congress for his 50 
years of dedicated service to the U.S. Government.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am privileged to join my friend from 
Iowa, Senator Harkin, in putting in the Senate's recognition of John 
Berg--an institution himself.
  His service to Americans was his life. No task was insurmountable; no 
task was performed with less than all-out dedication.
  My most memorable among many trips to Paris was during the 
bicentennial of the Treaty of Paris in 1983. President Reagan had 
appointed me as his representative to the many events the French hosted 
to honor the first treaty to recognize, in 1783, a new Nation--the 13 
colonies as the United States of America. John Berg was my aid-de-camp 
throughout that visit. I should add to that official visits to the 40th 
and 50th recognitions of D-day, June 6, 1944.
  And so it goes for all of us in Congress as we salute John Berg. Well 
done, sir.


                           amendment no. 1007

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       ``The Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in 
     consultation with the Judicial Conference, shall conduct a 
     study of the average costs incurred in defending and 
     presiding over federal capital cases from the initial 
     appearance of the defendant through the final appeal, and 
     shall submit a written report to the Chairman and Ranking 
     Members of the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations 
     and Judiciary on or before July 1, 1998, containing 
     recommendations on measures to contain costs in such cases, 
     with constitutional requirements.''
       ``: Provided Further, That the Attorney General, shall 
     review the practices of U.S. Attorneys' Offices and relevant 
     investigating agencies in investigating and prosecuting 
     federal capital cases, including before the initial 
     appearance of the defendant through final appeal, and shall 
     submit a written report to the Chairman and Ranking Members 
     of the Senate and House Committees on the Appropriations and 
     Judiciary on or before July 1, 1998, containing 
     recommendations on measures to contain costs in such cases, 
     consistent with constitutional requirements, and outlining a 
     protocol for the effective, fiscally responsible prosecution 
     of federal capital cases''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1008

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to slamming)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE WITH RESPECT TO SLAMMING.

       (a) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this statement 
     of the sense of the Senate are to--
       (1) protect consumers from the fraudulent transfer of their 
     phone service provider;
       (2) allow the efficient prosecution of phone service 
     providers who defraud consumers; and
       (3) encourage an environment in which consumers can readily 
     select the telephone service provider which best serves them.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) As the telecommunications industry has moved toward 
     competition in the long distance market, consumers have 
     increasingly elected to change the company which

[[Page S8085]]

     provides their long-distance phone service. As many as fifty 
     million consumers now change their long distance provider 
     annually.
       (2) The fluid nature of the long distance market has also 
     allowed an increasing number of fraudulent transfers to 
     occur. Such transfers have been termed ``slamming'', which 
     constitutes any practice that changes a consumer's long 
     distance carrier without the consumer's knowledge or consent.
       (3) Slamming is now the largest single consumer complaint 
     received by the Common Carrier Bureau of the Federal 
     Communications Commission. As many as one million consumers 
     are fraudulently transferred annually to a telephone consumer 
     which they have not chosen.
       (4) The increased costs which consumers face as a result of 
     these fraudulent switches threaten to rob consumers of the 
     financial benefits created by a competitive marketplace.
       (5) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 sought to combat 
     this problem by directing that any revenues generated by a 
     fraudulent transfer be payable to the company which the 
     consumer has expressly chosen, not the fraudulent transferor.
       (6) While the Federal Communications Commission has 
     proposed and promulgated regulations on this subject, the 
     Commission has not been able to effectively deter the 
     practice of slamming due to a lack of prosecutorial resources 
     as well as the difficulty of proving that a provider failed 
     to obtain the consent of a consumer prior to acquiring that 
     consumer as a new customer. Commission action to date has not 
     adequately protected consumers.
       (7) The majority of consumers who have been fraudulently 
     denied the services of their chosen phone service vendor do 
     not turn to the Federal Communications Commission for 
     assistance. Indeed, section 258 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 directs that State commissions shall be able to enforce 
     regulations mandating that the consent of a consumer be 
     obtained prior to a switch of service.
       (8) It is essential that Congress provide the consumer, 
     local carriers, law enforcement, and consumer agencies with 
     the ability to efficiently and effectively persecute those 
     companies which slam consumers, thus providing a deterrent to 
     all other firms which provide phone services.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Federal Communications Commission should, within 12 
     months of the date of enactment of this Act, promulgate 
     regulations, consistent with the Communications Act of 1934 
     which provide law enforcement officials dispositive evidence 
     for use in the prosecution of fraudulent transfers of 
     presubscribed costumers of long distance and local service; 
     and
       (2) the Senate should examine the issue of slamming and 
     take appropriate legislative action in the 105th Congress to 
     better protect consumers from unscrupulous practices 
     including, but not limited to, mandating the recording and 
     maintenance of evidence concerning the consent of the 
     consumer to switch phone vendors, establishing higher civil 
     fines for violations, and establishing a civil right of 
     action against fraudulent providers, as well as criminal 
     sanctions for repeated and willful instances of slamming.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1009

(Purpose: To foster a safer elementary and secondary school environment 
  for the nation's children through the support of community policing 
                                efforts)

       On page 65, line 10, insert the following: ``Section 120. 
     There shall be no restriction on the use of Public Safety and 
     Community Policing Grants, authorized under title I of the 
     1994 Act, to support innovative programs to improve the 
     safety of elementary and secondary school children and reduce 
     crime on or near elementary or secondary school grounds.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1010

(Purpose: To limit the funds made available for the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Policy, if such office 
                is established, and for other purposes)

       On page 75, line 3, strike all beginning with 
     ``$20,000,000,'' through line 8 and insert the following: 
     ``such funds as are necessary, not to exceed 2 percent of 
     projected annual revenues of the Patent and Trademark Office, 
     shall be made available from the sum appropriated in this 
     paragraph for the staffing, operation, and support of said 
     office once a plan for this office has been submitted to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations pursuant to 
     section 605 of this Act.''.


                           amendment no. 1011

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       ``Section 1701(b)(2)(A) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) may not exceed 20 percent of the funds available for 
     grants pursuant to this subsection in any fiscal year.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1012

       At the appropriate place, insert ``Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service may be used to 
     accept, process, or forward to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation any FD-258 fingerprint card, or any other means 
     used to transmit fingerprints, for the purpose of conducting 
     a criminal background check on any applicant for any benefit 
     under the Immigration and Nationality Act unless the 
     applicant's fingerprints have been taken by an office of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service or by a law 
     enforcement agency, which may collect a fee for the service 
     of taking and forwarding the fingerprints.''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1013

 (Purpose: To strike a restriction concerning the transfer of certain 
personnel to the Office of Legislative Affairs or the Office of Public 
                 Affairs of the Department of Justice)

       On page 2, lines 17 through 22, strike the colon on line 17 
     and all that follows through ``basis'' on line 22.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1014

       On page 125, strike lines 3-9.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1015

 (Purpose: To provide a waiver from certain immunization requirements 
             for certain aliens entering the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following: WAIVER OF 
     CERTAIN VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS
       Sec.    . (a) in general.--Section 212 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(p) The Attorney General should exercise the waiver 
     authority provided for in subsection (g)(2)(B) for any alien 
     orphan applying for an IR3 or IR4 category visa.''.

  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, This is intended to resolve a potentially 
serious problem involving foreign children emigrating to the United 
States for the purpose of being united with their adoptive parents. 
Quite simply, the amendment urges the Attorney General to exercise that 
authority to waive vaccination requirements for certain categories of 
emigres that is part of current law.
  Last year, my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, succeeded in 
getting passed legislation authorizing the Attorney General to waive 
the immunization requirements for legal aliens entering the country if 
medical, moral or religious considerations so warrant. Unfortunately, 
that authority has not been exercised, despite extenuating 
circumstances that clearly argue for such a waiver from the 
immunization requirement. No where is this failure to exercise that 
authority more damaging than in the area of foreign-borne orphans being 
adopted by U.S. citizens.
  Neither Senator Kyl nor I would argue that immigrants with serious 
communicable diseases should be allowed into the United States. What we 
are saying is that children whose medical conditions cannot be 
accurately determined without a more thorough examination than can be 
administered in their home country should not be subjected to 
vaccinations that may trigger unforeseen reactions, for instance, from 
allergies to a specific serum. Additionally, other medical conditions 
may exist that make immunization at a specific time unadvisable, as 
would be the case with a child suffering from influenza. All this 
amendment does is tell the Attorney General to do what common sense 
dictates should be done anyway: not subject children to vaccinations to 
which their systems may not be immediately adaptable.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It 
would do nothing that could pose a health risk to the American public; 
it only eliminates the risk to children, often from countries with far 
more primitive health care than is available here, of immunizations if 
their individual medical conditions indicate such treatment would pose 
a serious risk to the health of the child.


                           amendment no. 1016

       Sec.   . The second proviso of the second paragraph under 
     the heading ``OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER.'' in the 
     Act entitled ``An Act Making appropriations for the support 
     of the Regular and Volunteer Army for the fiscal year ending 
     June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and one'', approved May 26, 
     1900 (31 Stat. 206; chapter 586; 47 U.S.C. 17), is repealed.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1017

   (Purpose: To exclude from the United States aliens who have been 
       involved in extrajudicial and political killings in Haiti)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S8086]]

     SEC.   . EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF ALIENS WHO HAVE 
                   BEEN INVOLVED IN EXTRAJUDICIAL AND POLITICAL 
                   KILLINGS IN HAITI.

       (a) Grounds for Exclusion.--None of the funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available in this Act shall be used to 
     issue visas to any person who--
       (1) has been credibly alleged to have ordered, carried out, 
     or materially assisted in the extrajudicial and political 
     killings of Antoine Izmery, Guy Malary, Father Jean-Marie 
     Vincent, Pastor Antoine Leroy, Jacques Fleurival, Mireille 
     Durocher Bertin, Eugene Baillergea, Michelange Hermann, Max 
     Mayard, Romulus Dumarsais, Claude Yves Marie, Mario Beaubrun, 
     Leslie Grimar, Joseph Chilove, Michel Gonzalez, and Jean-
     Hubert Feuille;
       (2) has been included in the list presented to former 
     President Jean-Bertrand Aristide by former National Security 
     Council Advisor Anthony Lake in December 1995, and acted upon 
     by President Rene Preval;
       (3) was a member of the Haitian presidential security unit 
     who has been credibly alleged to have ordered, carried out, 
     or materially assisted in the extrajudicial and political 
     killings of Pastor Antoine Leroy and Jacques Fleurival, or 
     who was suspended by President Preval for his involvement in 
     or knowledge of the Leroy and Fleurival killings on August 
     20, 1996;
       (4) was sought for an interview by the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation as part of its inquiry into the March 28, 1995, 
     murder of Mireille Durocher Bertin and Eugene Baillergea, 
     Jr., and was credibly alleged to have ordered, carried out, 
     or materially assisted in those murders, per a June 28, 1995, 
     letter to the then Minister of Justice of the Government of 
     Haiti, Jean-Joseph Exume;
       (5) was a member of the Haitian High Command during the 
     period 1991 through 1994, and has been credibly alleged to 
     have planned, ordered, or participated with members of the 
     Haitian Armed Forces in--
       (A) the September 1991 coup against any person who was a 
     duly elected government official of Haiti (or a member of the 
     family of such official), or
       (B) the murders of thousands of Haitians during the period 
     1991 through 1994; or
       (6) has been credibly alleged to have been a member of the 
     paramilitary organization known as FRAPH who planned, 
     ordered, or participated in acts of violence against the 
     Haitian people.
       (b) Exemption.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the 
     Secretary of State finds, on a case-by-case basis, that the 
     entry into the United States of a person who would otherwise 
     be excluded under this section is necessary for medical 
     reasons or such person has cooperated fully with the 
     investigation of these political murders. If the Secretary 
     of State exempts any such person, the Secretary shall 
     notify the appropriate congressional committees in 
     writing.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--(1) The United States chief of 
     mission in Haiti shall provide the Secretary of State a list 
     of those who have been credibly alleged to have ordered or 
     carried out the extrajudicial and political killings 
     mentioned in paragraph (1) of subsection (a).
       (2) The Secretary of State shall submit the list provided 
     under paragraph (1) to the appropriate congressional 
     committees not later than 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) The Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a list of aliens denied visas, and 
     the Attorney General shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a list of aliens refused entry to 
     the United States as a result of this provision.
       (4) The Secretary of State shall submit a report under this 
     subsection not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and not later than March 1 of each year 
     thereafter as long as the Government of Haiti has not 
     completed the investigation of the extrajudicial and 
     political killings and has not prosecuted those implicated 
     for the killings specified in paragraph (1) of subsection 
     (a).
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, my amendment excludes Haitians from the 
U.S. who have been involved in extrajudicial and political killings in 
Haiti. Specifically, it does this by denying funds for the issuance of 
visas to these persons.
  There have been numerous cases of politically-motivated 
assassinations in Haiti. Some of these extrajudicial killings occurred 
while former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was in exile. Many others 
took place after he returned to power. Unfortunately, these killings 
have continued after Mr. Aristide left office and Rene Preval became 
President.
  The Haitian Government has assigned over eighty extrajudicial and 
political killing cases to the Special Investigative Unit. The Haitian 
Government claims that they have fired several government employees who 
are suspects in these killings.
  But the sad fact remains that to date, no one has been convicted for 
any of these assassinations. Simply stated, there has been no 
substantial progress in these investigations.
  We need to encourage the Haitians to bring these killers to justice. 
We need to let them know that these killings cannot be tolerated.
  My amendment denies funding for the issuance of visas to those who 
have been credibly alleged to have ordered, carried out, materially 
assisted, or sought to conceal these extrajudicial and political 
killings. The amendment exempts persons for medical reasons, or if they 
have cooperated fully with the investigation of these political 
murders.
  The legislation also includes a reporting requirement. The 
Administration would be directed to submit, to the appropriate 
congressional committees, (1) a list of those who have been credibly 
alleged to have ordered or carried out the extrajudicial and political 
killings; (2) a list of those refused entry to the United States as a 
result of this provision; and (3) a report on this matter, to be 
submitted once each year, until such time as the Government of Haiti 
has completed the investigation of these extrajudicial and political 
killings and has prosecuted those implicated in these murders.
  It is an unfortunate reality that political violence has been a way 
of life in Haiti. Too many Haitians have died due to acts of political 
violence. The adoption of this amendment will not solve their problems 
overnight. But it can help. I believe this legislation sends a strong 
signal that violence must not be used as a political tool in Haiti. It 
also sends a message to the Haitians that we will vigorously support 
those who want to end political violence and create a lasting society 
of peace and prosperity in Haiti.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.


                           amendment no. 1018

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       On page 114, strike lines 14-23.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1019

(Purpose: To delay the effective date of the amendments made by section 
   233 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

       At the appropriate place in title I of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 1  . Section 233(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective 
     Death Penalty Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 1245) is amended by 
     striking ``1 year after the date of enactment of this Act'' 
     and inserting ``October 1, 1999''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1020

       On page 139, after line 13 insert the following:

                   ``Gambling Impact Study Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Gambling Impact 
     Study Commission, $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That funds made available for this 
     purpose shall be taken from funds made available on page 23, 
     line 21.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1021

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following: 
     Provided further, that not to exceed $2,000,000 may be made 
     available for the 1999 Women's World Cup Organizing Committee 
     cultural exchange and exchange related activities associated 
     with the 1999 Women's World Cup.''

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts and Senator Feinstein be added as cosponsors to Senator 
Steven's USIA amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point I wish to thank, obviously, 
my staff and the minority staff for the extraordinary amount of time 
and energy they have put into this bill. They have been here all day 
and have done an incredible amount of work in an extremely complex 
situation, I would say, on a number of occasions. How they sort it all 
out, I am not sure. But they have and they have done it beautifully. I 
thank them for their energies. I thank the ranking member for all his 
time and patience in this exercise, which has been reasonably 
complicated but very successful as a result of all this.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am really grateful to the 
distinguished chairman, the Senator from New Hampshire, for his 
leadership. His staff has been very professional and cooperative. It is 
truly a bipartisan measure. It has been a privilege and pleasure to 
work with him. Obviously, my staff has

[[Page S8087]]

been working around the clock, and I am really indebted to them. I 
thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for all his work.

                          ____________________