[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8213-S8215]
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.


               Amendments Nos. 1024 through 1031, En Bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a managers' package 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], proposes 
     amendments numbered 1024 through 1031, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 1024

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       On page 77, line 16, strike ``$1,995,252,000'' and insert 
     $1,999,052,000''.
       On page 77, line 16, after ``expended'', insert the 
     following: ``, of which not to exceed $3,800,000 may be made 
     available to the Secretary of Commerce for a study on the 
     effect of intentional encirclement, including chase, on 
     dolphins and dolphin stocks in the eastern tropical Pacific 
     Ocean purse seine fishery''.
       On page 77, line 26, strike ``$1,992,252,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,996,052,000''.
       On page 100, line 24, strike ``75,000,000'' and insert 
     ``105,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1025

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law and pursuant to 
     the fiscal year 1997 Emergency Supplemental Act (Public Law 
     105-18) Subsection 2004, funding for the following projects 
     is to be made available from prior year carryover funds: 
     $200,000 for the Ship Creek facility in Anchorage, Alaska; 
     $1,000,000 for the construction of a facility on the Gulf 
     Coast in Mississippi; and $300,000 for an open ocean 
     aquaculture project and community outreach program in Durham, 
     New Hampshire.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1026

  (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)

       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 deoxyribonucleic 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 DNA samples from any sex offender;
       (B) the analysis of the collected samples 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 the 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.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1027

     (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that the Federal 
   government should not withhold universal service support payments)

       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.

       The Congress finds that:
       (A) it reaffirmed the importance of universal service 
     support for telecommunications services by passing the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996;
       (B) the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the Federal 
     Communications Commission to preserve and advance universal 
     service based on the following principles:
       (1) Quality services should be available at just, 
     reasonable, and affordable rates;
       (2) Access to advanced telecommunications and information 
     services should be provided in all regions of the Nation;
       (3) 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 
     advance 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;
       (4) All providers of telecommunications services should 
     make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the 
     preservation and advancement of universal service;
       (5) There should be specific, predictable, and sufficient 
     Federal and State mechanisms

[[Page S8214]]

     to preserve and advance universal service; and
       (6) Elementary and secondary schools and classrooms, health 
     care providers, and libraries should have access to advanced 
     telecommunications services;
       (C) 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;
       (D) the Conference Committee on the Balanced Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1997, is considering proposals that 
     would withhold Federal universal service funds in the year 
     2002; and
       (E) the withholding of billions of dollars of universal 
     service support payments may result in temporary rate 
     increases in rural and high cost areas and may delay 
     qualifying schools, libraries, and rural health facilities 
     discounts directed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
       Now, therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that the 
     Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997 should not 
     manipulate, modify, or impair universal service support as a 
     means to achieve a balanced Federal budget or to achieve 
     Federal budget savings.
                                  ____

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from North Dakota 
for highlighting the case against including the Universal Service Fund 
in our budget reconciliation process. This is bad public policy. It is 
unfair to the residents of rural America. I hope that today the Senate 
will take a strong stand against it.
  The Universal Service Fund is comprised of private fees assessed to 
our Nation's telecommunications carriers. Over the last 60 years, this 
fund has made it possible for every resident in the United States to 
have access to telecommunications services. It represents a national 
guarantee that wherever you decide to live and work and raise a 
family--even if it is in one of the most remote areas of our country--
telecommunications services will be affordable.
  Although universal service is a Federal guideline, there are no 
Federal tax dollars involved in the Universal Service Fund. Moreover, 
the fund is administered by a nongovernmental agency that operates on 
the simple notion that carriers in low cost urban areas contribute more 
so that carriers who serve residents of high cost rural areas can 
provide affordable service. The administration of this fund has worked 
so well that most Americans do not even know it exists and take for 
granted the low rates for basic telephone service we all currently 
enjoy.
  The principle of universal service represents one of our Government's 
most sacred and successful agreements with the American people. It 
guarantees those who live in rural areas the same access to 
telecommunications services as those who live in urban areas and is a 
major contributor to the rapid development and growth our rural areas 
are currently experiencing. Many parts of my home State of South 
Dakota, quite frankly, may not have been settled were it not for this 
guarantee, and I am very concerned that the budget deal may 
inadvertently undermine the Universal Service Fund.
  Under the budget agreement concluded last night, the Universal 
Service Fund will be used to mask a $2 billion hole in the Federal 
deficit in fiscal year 2002. This sets a dangerous precedent. This 
private fund should not be incorporated into the Federal budget 
process, and the affordable rates it guarantees should not be left 
vulnerable to budget whimsy.
  Throughout the past year, I have worked closely with Senator Dorgan 
and many other colleagues to impress upon the administration the value 
of ensuring equitable and affordable access to telecommunications 
services in rural areas. While administration officials have been 
largely receptive to this argument, the decision to put the USF on 
budget raises questions about some policymakers' understanding of rural 
concerns.
  I am greatly troubled that placing the Universal Service Fund on 
budget will create a dangerous precedent that could raise rates in 
rural America and endanger our Government's 60 year promise of 
affordable telecommunications service to all areas of this country. The 
principle of universal service represents a sacred agreement between 
the Government and its citizens. It must not be undermined by budget 
games.
  The Dorgan amendment puts the Senate on record that the use of these 
funds in the budget process is wrong, and I strongly urge its approval.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dorgan Amendment, 
which expresses the view of the Senate that the universal service 
support system which keeps telephone service affordable; should not be 
turned into a piggy bank which can be raided to produce an illusory 
deficit reduction.
  The Conferees working on the Reconciliation Conference report are 
considering legislation which for the first time would manipulate the 
universal service support system for budgetary gains. This would be a 
terrible precedent which could drive up phone rates, especially for 
rural Americans.
  In 1996, the Congress enacted dramatic reform in the laws which 
govern the organization of America's telecommunications markets. The 
law was intended to introduce competition into all telecomm markets and 
preserve universal service.
  The bargain was that competition would replace regulation but that 
all carriers would share the responsibility for providing universal 
service.
  The idea of Universal Service is profound. It is one of the most 
fundamental principles of telecommunications law and economics. The 
concept was introduced in the original Communications Act of 1934 which 
promised ``to make available to all Americans a rapid, efficient, 
nationwide and world-wide wire and radio communications service . . .''
  From 1934 to 1996, regulation and monopoly were the primary means of 
ensuring telephone services to all Americans. In 1996, the Congress 
embraced the idea that competition would best deliver 
telecommunications services to all Americans at affordable rates.
  The Congress also recognized that there were some markets which 
competitive companies would not serve and some areas where costs are so 
high that rates would drive citizens off of the phone network. In those 
markets, universal service support would keep comparable services and 
comparable rates available in rural and urban areas.
  The principle of universal service is that all Americans should have 
modern, efficient and affordable communications services available to 
them regardless of where they live.
  In the aftermath of the break-up of AT&T, a system of intercompany 
payments were established to assure that competition in long distance 
services did not drive prices for local phone service through the 
roof, especially in rural areas.

  Universal service support is not a subsidy, and it is not a tax. It 
is a shared cost of a national telecommunications network.
  What makes the American phone network valuable is that almost anyone 
can be reached. Affordable phone service is not just important to the 
citizens of rural America, it is of value to the citizens who live in 
urban areas who need and want to reach Americans in rural areas.
  The basic bargain of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was that the 
gates of competition would open, provided all telecommunications 
carriers contribute to the support of universal service. Under the act, 
support would be sufficient, predictable, and the burdens would be 
shared in a nondiscriminatory manner.
  To assure that all Americans shared in the benefits of the 
information revolution, the Congress also adopted the Snowe-
Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey amendment which provided for discounts to 
schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities. The bottom line, 
Mr. President was that no American would be left behind.
  If certain budget negotiators have their way, many Americans will be 
left behind.
  The precedent that the reconciliation conferees have under 
consideration is dangerous because it attempts to undermine the promise 
of sufficient and predictable support for universal service. It does so 
to gain a mere bookkeeping advantage in the effort to reach a balanced 
budget by 2002.
  If the universal service support system is manipulated for this 
purpose, consumers lose. They will get higher rates and lower service.
  By adopting the Dorgan amendment, the Senate can send a clear message 
to conferees that affordable phone service is important to all 
Americas. The very system which assures affordability

[[Page S8215]]

should not be jeopardized by an attempt to avoid the real choices 
necessary to produce a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                           amendment no. 1028

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       At the end of the section in title I regarding the ``WAIVER 
     OF CERTAIN VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS'', insert the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(b) Report.--The Attorney General, in conjunction with 
     the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and State, shall 
     report to Congress within 6 months of the date of enactment 
     of this Act on how to establish an enforcement program to 
     ensure that immigrants who receive waivers from the 
     immunization requirement pursuant to section 212 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act comply with the requirement 
     of that section after the immigrants enter the United States, 
     except when such immunizations would not be medically 
     appropriate in the United States or would be contrary to the 
     alien's religious or moral convictions.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1029

       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 
     discretionary spending limits contained in Section 201 of 
     H.Con.Res. 84 (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. BIDEN. Mr. President, this amendment extends the crime law trust 
fund through 2002 at the funding levels of the budget agreement.
  This amendment has the same effect as the Biden-Gramm-Hatch amendment 
passed by the Senate 98 to 2 on June 27, 1997.
  Let me point out just one practical effect of my amendment. The 
Senate Judiciary Committee reported major youth violence legislation 
last week--this Hatch-Sessions bill calls for $1.5 billion from the 
crime law trust fund in 2001 and 2002--this is almost one-half of the 
dollars to fund a new Republican youth violence block grant.
  Now, I do not agree with many of the specifics of this block grant 
and I look forward to debating these issues on the floor.
  But, the bottom line is real simple--if we do not pass this 
amendment, there will be no trust fund in 2001 and 2002, and so, there 
will be no youth violence block grant in 2001 and 2002--no matter what 
form this block grant ultimately takes.
  And, it is the same for prisons, 100,000 cops, and violence against 
women. If we do not pass my amendment, there will be no trust fund in 
2001 and 2002, and there will be no more funding for prisons and no 
more to fight violence against women.
  I also want to point out to my colleagues that I believe that there 
are Budget Act points of order which could be lodged against my 
amendment. I say that just so all of us are clear about my amendment. I 
would move to waive such a point of order were it raised. I just want 
my colleagues to understand this fact as we pass this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1030

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

       On page 29, line 18, insert ``That of the amount made 
     available for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants under this 
     heading, 10,000,000 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,''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1031

       On page 65, on line 25 after ``expenses'' insert the 
     following: Provided further, That the number of political 
     appointees on board as of May 1, 1998, shall constitute not 
     more than fifteen percentum of the total full-time equivalent 
     positions at the Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative.''

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Withholding, and I do not intend to object, I 
understand it is pretty well worked out, but there was one language 
inclusion.
  Mr. GREGG. It is all done.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1024-1031), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are going to have some further 
discussion on this bill, the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations 
bill, and I understand there are at least a couple of votes. This 
package of amendments has eliminated four of the votes. In fact, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw amendments Nos. 992, 996, 997, and 998.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 992, 996, 997, and 998) were withdrawn.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just for the information of the Members, we 
are now down to what appears to be final passage, plus potentially four 
votes. Hopefully, we can reduce that further. We are certainly going to 
work on that. And then we can complete the bill. I understand we are 
going to proceed to these votes and final passage around 3:15. That is 
the plan presently.

                          ____________________