[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12662-S12667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    THE COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE, AND JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes at this 
time to especially thank my staff, headed by Jim Morhard, and so many 
other members of the staff on both the Democratic and Republican side, 
who have spent literally hours, including all the hours of last night 
and many other evenings, but the entire night, getting this bill into a 
position where it could be passed. It is, as it appears to be, the last 
appropriations bill to be passed by the Senate and the House and, as 
such, it has had more than its fair share of issues attached to it. But 
as a result of the diligent and extraordinary work of the staff, both 
the Democratic and Republican staff, it is now, I believe, close to 
successful conclusion, and I anticipate that the House will soon be 
passing it, and it will be, as we have just agreed to here in the 
Senate, deemed passed.
  The bill itself is a very strong piece of legislation. It makes an 
extraordinarily aggressive commitment to supporting and expanding our 
efforts in the area of law enforcement, in the area of trying to stop 
the drugs that are flowing into this country, in protecting our borders 
and expanding our efforts to make sure that people who are convicted, 
especially of violent crimes, are incarcerated and kept in prison.
  It has a very strong commitment also to prevention activities in the 
area of our justice system. Special emphasis has been put on the 
violence-against-women initiatives, which are funded at $270.7 million 
in this bill, an increase of almost 55 percent in this category since I 
became chairman in 1995.

[[Page S12663]]

  Also, we have put a special emphasis on attempting to address the 
problems of the Internet relative to child pornography and, 
unfortunately, the fact that many pedophiles--people who wish to harm 
our children--are using the Internet for purposes of stalking children. 
We have continued, supported, and expanded the FBI's initiatives in 
things like ``Innocent Images'' which is a sting program to try to 
catch pedophiles and child pornographers. We expanded it so that local 
and State law enforcement communities will have experience in this area 
and can take advantage of the protocols set up by the FBI.
  Further, we recognize that juvenile crime is one of the greatest 
problems in the country today, and we have attempted to address that 
through the expansion of the juvenile justice programs, especially the 
preventive programs. I see Senator Coats here on the floor, who has 
been a force of immense energy in the area of trying to address 
juvenile prevention programs, such as Big Sister/Big Brother, and Boys 
and Girls Clubs, which is funded under this program. We have also 
created a new block grant, the purpose of which will be to help local 
communities in the area of juvenile justice. This block grant is 
aggressively funded with $250 million.
  There is, in addition, a comprehensive effort--it is a continuing 
effort--to address terrorism activities and to pursue an aggressive 
policy of counterterrorism. We all recognize, especially with the 
events of the last few days that have occurred in Pakistan, that 
Americans are at risk overseas. They are also, regrettably, at risk in 
our own country. We have seen two trials just recently completed, one 
involving the New York Trade Center, the other involving a shooting 
outside the CIA. Counterterrorism requires that we have a coordinated 
effort and that we have a strong law enforcement element in that 
coordinated effort, and this bill pursues both those activities.

  Senators who represent States along our border, our southern border 
especially, have found very serious problems in the area of drug 
enforcement and in the area of illegal immigrants coming across the 
border, so we are dramatically expanding the number of INS border 
patrols in this bill, increasing them by 1,000; including $250 million 
in new initiatives to try to restore the integrity of the 
naturalization process, which unfortunately has fallen on hard times, 
to say the least. That may not be the best description of it, in fact, 
because the system has so collapsed. This bill puts the dollars 
necessary to give adequate support to the INS, and also it dramatically 
expands the Border Patrol efforts so that States like, especially, 
Texas and Arizona, which need additional border patrols, will be able 
to obtain them.
  It significantly expands our efforts in the area of NOAA activities. 
This is one of our premier national treasures in the area of research 
and technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It 
is an organization which has cutting-edge knowledge in a variety of 
areas, but especially in the prediction of our weather. We aggressively 
pursue the expansion of our efforts in weather research and information 
areas.
  We give our judges a cost-of-living increase, something they deserve. 
This bill covers a lot of different jurisdictions, as is known by most 
of the Senators. One that doesn't get too much attention is the fact 
that it covers the judicial branch of our Government. We are going to 
try to help the Supreme Court out and renovate the Supreme Court 
building, but at the same time we are going to give our judges a 
reasonable cost-of-living adjustment.
  In the area of the State Department, we concentrate aggressively in 
trying to get their physical house in order. It is really a national 
disgrace, the type of equipment that some of our overseas personnel are 
asked to use. We still have dial phones in some embassies that we fund 
around the world. Many of our facilities are simply decrepit and 
rundown. We have made a major commitment to rehabilitate our facilities 
and to expand the communication and technology attributes of the State 
Department.
  In addition, we are making a major commitment to the personnel of the 
State Department. I believe they and their families deserve our 
support, especially in the area of giving them adequate security. We 
aggressively pursued that.
  Other agencies, the Small Business Administration, FCC, FTC, all of 
which are covered by this bill, are also aggressively addressed. We do 
all this in the context of a bill that, although it spends a 
considerable amount of money, over $31 billion, spends less than what 
the President requested and is clearly within the budget, which is a 
balanced budget, I would note, as a result of the budget passed by this 
Congress.
  So, again, I thank the staff for their extraordinary work in this 
area. I appreciate especially the assistance of the leader in allowing 
us to get this bill finally resolved. Without his intervention at a 
number of critical stages, it would not have been pulled together. I 
very much thank him for his assistance in this effort.
  I also especially want to thank my ranking member, Senator Hollings, 
who is really a great fellow to work with. He has a tremendous 
institutional history of how this committee works, and where the 
funding comes from, and what has happened in the past. His counsel has 
always been extraordinarily useful to me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I extend my congratulations to the Senator 
from New Hampshire for his work on this very important appropriations 
bill. I should note it is the 13th and final appropriations conference 
report, the last one across the line, but a big one and an important 
one--Commerce, State, and Justice and related agencies. It also became 
a vehicle for a number of Senators to attempt to address problems, as 
it was the last conference report to go through the Congress. It was 
quite a struggle, but an important one. I commend the Senator from New 
Hampshire for his good work. I should also note the cooperation he 
received from the ranking member, the Senator from South Carolina. I 
thank the Senator for his work. I am glad we had our colleagues from 
the other side of the Capitol also work with us on this effort, which 
was a very interesting experience.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I come to floor today to discuss the new 
juvenile justice grant program contained in the appropriations bill for 
the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments. Of course, I would have 
preferred the appropriators to defer to the Judiciary Committee, which 
considered juvenile crime legislation for over a month and reported a 
bill to the Senate floor, so we could have a full debate and develop 
effective, comprehensive juvenile crime legislation.
  That said, I am pleased that the conference report addresses one of 
my primary concerns by relaxing the mandates contained in earlier 
proposals that would have required States to try more juveniles as 
adults to qualify for federal funding.
  Recall that the juvenile crime bill passed by the House of 
Representatives last spring would have disqualified States from 
receiving federal funds unless prosecutors had complete discretion to 
try certain 15-year-olds as adults. Similarly, as originally 
introduced, the Senate Republican's youth crime bill --S. 10--would 
have required States to give prosecutors unfettered discretion to try 
14-year-olds as adults, even for minor crimes, to qualify for funding. 
S. 10 as passed by the Committee loosened this restriction 
substantially, by enabling States to qualify for funding so long as 14-
year-olds were eligible to be tried as adults for serious violent 
crimes, which they already are in almost every State.
  Similarly, the new program contained in the appropriations bill 
passed by Congress today does not require States to change their laws 
on trying juveniles as adults. All a State must do to participate in 
the new program is to certify that it is ``actively considering'' such 
changes in policy. So, a State can say, ``we're going to think about 
it,'' introduce legislation but not enact it, or even reject 
legislative changes and still qualify for the new federal youth crime 
fighting funds.
  I support this relaxation from the earlier proposals because trying 
more juveniles as adults is likely to be counterproductive. The 
research shows that juveniles tried in the adult system are

[[Page S12664]]

more likely to be released on bail, less likely to be convicted, 
punished more slowly, and incarcerated less frequently than in the 
juvenile justice system. If we want to get tough on juvenile crime, 
trying kids as adults is the wrong answer.
  What is more, placing juveniles in adult jails--where they have 
exposure to hardened criminals--will only make them more likely to 
commit crimes once they get out. So despite popular opinion, trying 
more kids as adults may make our crime problem worse, not better.
  Instead of imposing unproven, Washington-based solutions on the 
States, the best thing the federal government can do is provide local 
law enforcement, prosecutors, juvenile courts, and community based 
organizations additional funds to develop creative, comprehensive 
strategies to address juvenile crime. Such strategies are beginning to 
bear fruit across the country as juvenile crime has fallen 
significantly in the past two years.
  The new juvenile crime block grant takes a partial step in the right 
direction by providing $250 million for juvenile justice system 
improvements. But this new program is deeply flawed by failing to 
permit State and localities to use any of these funds for juvenile 
crime prevention programs. Police chiefs and prosecutors around the 
country are emphatic that to be effective in combating juvenile crime, 
we have to combine tough enforcement with effective prevention 
programs. The new block grant sends the wrong message to our States and 
localities by requiring that all the funds be spent on enforcement and 
juvenile justice system improvements.
  I am also concerned that the new program will not result in 
sufficient funding for juvenile prosecutors. Past experience has shown 
that block grants that flow through local governments do not result in 
very much funding for prosecutors offices. In the Senate youth crime 
bill, we have established a grant program--albeit an underfunded one--
that would provide federal funding directly to prosecutors specifically 
for juvenile crime fighting efforts. I will work to fix these and other 
flaws in the new program when we consider youth violence legislation 
next year.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to let my colleagues know that 
tucked in the hundreds of pages of provisions on appropriating federal 
funds on existing programs in this conference report is legislative 
language to create a new $250 million grant program, called the 
``Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant.'' This newly 
authorized program is based on the block grant program in H.R. 3, the 
``Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997,'' although that bill have not 
passed or even been considered by the Senate.
  This new program sounds great until you look at the proverbial fine 
print. Because of all the new requirements on the States this is just a 
tease--many States won't qualify for a penny of this money under H.R. 3 
as passed by the House of Representatives on May 8, 1997.
  For instance, H.R. 3 mandates that a state must set up a new system 
of record keeping relating to juveniles that is equivalent to the 
record keeping system for adults for similar conduct under state and 
Federal law to be eligible for this block grant. Many states would be 
forced to make considerable changes to their laws to comply with this 
mandate. And the cost of complying with this mandate, which would 
require capturing records for minor juvenile offenses too, is totally 
unknown.
  My home state of Vermont, for example, would not qualify for the 
block grant in H.R. 3, even though my State has some of the toughest 
juvenile crime laws in the country, and has the lowest juvenile violent 
crime rates in the country. Massachusetts will not qualify either, even 
though that State has made enormous progress in reducing its violent 
crime problem. Our two States must be doing something right.
  I ask why we are being forced to take up the ill-considered H.R. 3 
block grant on an appropriations bill. The answer is because the 
Republican leadership says so. Otherwise, they might miss out on 
claiming credit in connection with fighting juvenile crime before 
Congress adjourns. I guess in their minds nothing happens that does not 
involve their political agenda. Fighting juvenile crime should not be 
about politics. Unfortunately, this heavy-handed effort is purely 
partisan. For a group that preaches states' rights, the Republican 
Leadership has no trouble trampling the hard work and insight of 50 
state legislatures who have enacted juvenile crime legislation. H.R. 3 
is a presumptuous attempt to have the heavy hand of the federal 
government dictate state criminal justice policy. This is the wrong way 
to craft serious legislation.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee spent eight mark-ups over two months 
earlier this year in crafting its juvenile crime bill, the ``Violent 
and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997,'' S. 10. Why did Chairman 
Hatch and the other members of the Judiciary Committee work so hard to 
try to craft a bill if the Republican leadership is just going to slip 
parts of the House bill into a spending bill at the last minute before 
Congress adjourns for the year? Every Member of the Judiciary Committee 
worked many hours to revise S. 10 before it was reported by the 
Committee to the full Senate. This bill still has major problems, but 
is much improved because of that deliberative legislative process and 
much better than its House companion, H.R. 3. I am hopeful that S. 10 
can be further improved on the Senate floor.
  This juvenile block grant approach is flawed and would benefit from 
attention through the normal legislative process of hearing, public 
comment, review, Committee consideration, amendment and report, Senate 
action and House-Senate conference. Instead, the Republican leadership 
is trying to force this flawed block grant through the Senate.
  Fortunately, we in the Senate have been able to modify the flawed 
block grant program in H.R. 3 to make it tolerable before it was 
included in this appropriations bill. I want to thank the Ranking 
Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
State and the Judiciary, Senator Hollings, and the Subcommittee's 
Chairman, Senator Gregg, for working with me, Senator Biden, and other 
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Our modifications make it clear that every state is eligible for the 
juvenile crime block grant program in this conference report. To 
qualify for the block grant program in this conference report, the 
Governor of a State may certify to the Attorney General that the State 
will consider legislation, policies and practices which if enacted 
would qualify the State for a grant under H.R. 3. Governor Dean of my 
home State has indicated to me that he is willing to make such a 
certification for Vermont to be eligible for this block grant. We have 
also limited this program to the 1998 Fiscal Year and made it subject 
to future authorization legislation.
  Mr. President, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle and in both houses of Congress to enact carefully 
considered legislation to reduce and prevent juvenile crime. But this 
hastily conceived block grant approach as part of this appropriations 
bill is the wrong way to achieve those goals.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join our Subcommittee 
Chairman, Senator Gregg, in presenting this Fiscal Year 1998 Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Conference Agreement to the Senate. This is a good agreement that has 
been worked out in a bipartisan fashion. It has taken us over six weeks 
of negotiations with the House to reach consensus. I should note that 
the Senate passed our version of the bill back on July 29 by a vote of 
99 to 0.
  In the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill we fund 
programs ranging from the FBI to our State Department embassies 
overseas, to fisheries research and the National Weather Service, to 
the Supreme Court and the Federal Communications Commission. It 
requires a balancing act of the priorities of the Nation, of the 
sometimes shared and, as we have seen in this conference, more often 
competing interests of our colleagues here in the Congress, and the 
priorities of the Administration--all within the confines of our 302(b) 
allocation. I think Chairman Gregg and his able staff--Jim Morhard, 
Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Dana Quam, Carl Truscott and Vasiliki

[[Page S12665]]

Alexopoulos--have done an outstanding job in balancing these interests 
in their work with our counterparts on the House Appropriations 
Committee. In the face of a very involved House Republican leadership 
and an administration that tried to give away the store in an effort to 
buy fast-track votes, we have held our own--and I fully support the 
agreement that we are considering today.
  In total, this bill provides $31.777 billion in budget authority, 
$158 million more than the Senate-passed bill. We have $1.881 billion 
more than was appropriated last year, and the bill is $275 million 
below the President's request.
  Once again, the CJS appropriations bill makes it clear that Congress 
is intent on funding Justice and law enforcement as a top priority. 
This bill provides appropriations totaling $17.5 billion for Justice--
an increase of $1 billion above last year for the Justice Department. 
Including fees we provide the Department through appropriations action, 
the total Justice Department budget is $19.5 billion.
  Within the Justice Department, the FBI is provided $2.9 billion. 
Included in this is a large increase of $143 million for the FBI to 
enhance its counterterrorism activities. This amount includes $54 
million to acquire counterterrorism readiness capabilities for 
responding to and managing incidents involving improvised explosive 
devices, chemical and biological agents, and cyber attacks. Also, $10 
million is provided to stop child exploitation on the Internet, a new 
issue affecting our youth that this Committee held a special hearing on 
earlier this year. We have provided enhanced funding to reinvigorate 
our battle against organized crime and to combat the La Cosa Nostra's 
efforts to penetrate the securities industry. Finally, we have provided 
$44.5 million which will complete the new FBI laboratory at Quantico, 
Virginia.
  The Drug Enforcement Administration is funded at $1.1 billion. 
Included in this amount is $34 million for 60 new agents, $30 million 
for counter-drug efforts along the Southwest border, $11 million 
targeted for methamphetamine production and trafficking, and $10 
million and 120 positions for efforts to reduce heroin trafficking--all 
priorities of the Senate.

  Also in Justice, the bill enhances INS border control by recommending 
1,000 new Border Patrol agents, restoring the integrity of the 
naturalization process, and expanding revocation, incarcerations, and 
deportation activities. The INS is funded at $3.8 billion. A program 
that most members have been hearing about from their constituents is 
the extension of 245(i). The conferees have adopted a 
``grandfathering'' clause that would allow 245(i) processing for anyone 
who has filed with the Attorney General or for labor certification with 
the Department of Labor by January 14, 1998.
  The CJS bill also provides funds to accelerate and expand efforts by 
U.S. Attorneys to collect the estimated $34 billion in unpaid child 
support. I'm especially pleased to note that an increase of $8.3 
million is provided to activate the new National Advocacy Center in my 
home state. This center will provide training in litigation and 
advocacy to our Assistant U.S. Attorneys and State and Local 
Prosecutors. It will be to the U.S. Attorneys what Quanitco is to the 
FBI and DEA. Finally, we have included $1 million for our U.S. Attorney 
Rene Josey to continue his outstanding violent crime task force efforts 
with our state and local law enforcement personnel.
  The conference agreement provides $1.4 billion for the Community 
Policy program and continues our commitment to put 100,000 cops on the 
beat. I'm especially pleased to note that we have included $100 million 
for an innovative program that addresses COPS retention issues in 
smaller communities with populations below 50,000. In these small rural 
communities the COPS program has been especially effective. I've seen 
it first hand in communities across South Carolina, and I'm pleased 
that the House and Senate conferees were willing to support my 
initiative.
  Additional programs to note with Justice include: $25 million for the 
Regional Information Sharing System [RISS]; $505 million for the Edward 
Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program and $523 for the Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant Program; $30 million for Drug Courts; $238.6 
million for juvenile justice prevention programs including $25 million 
to combat underage drinking of alcoholic beverages. This last program 
was offered as an amendment to the bill by Senator Byrd, Senator Hatch 
and myself last summer. $271 million provided for Violence Against 
Women Programs. $556 million is provided for State Prison or ``Truth in 
Sentencing'' grants and $585 million is provided for the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program.
  Finally, let me point out that this agreement includes $250 million 
for a new Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. I know that 
there is some controversy among my colleagues because we have provided 
this funding even though the House and Senate have not collectively 
completed action on an authorization bill. This program provides for 
such programs as: building, expanding or operating juvenile detention 
and corrections facilities; hiring additional juvenile judges, 
probation officers and court appointed defenders; drug courts; and 
hiring prosecutors. We have provided that these funds are available to 
states and local governments that consider the reforms provided for the 
House-passed bill. We have also provided that no state receive less 
than .5 percent. Everyone should be clear, that we are providing this 
as a stop-gap measure until the Senate is able to pass a juvenile 
justice bill. The bill language in this conference agreement makes it 
clear that these conditions are only for fiscal year 1998, and will 
cease upon enactment of a new Juvenile Justice authorization bill.

  In funding the Commerce Department, our bill provides $4.3 billion, 
an increase of $422 million over this year's enacted amounts. There are 
a number of accounts in Commerce that are worth noting.
  The International Trade Administration has been allocated $283 
million this year, and it's four program activities are funded at the 
following levels: Trade Development is at $59 million; Market Access 
and Compliance has a total of $17.3 million, which is an increase from 
last year; the Import Administration ends up at $28.7 million; and the 
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service is given $171 million, an increase 
of almost $8 million from last year.
  The Bureau of Export Administration is given $43.9 million this year. 
Our agreement on BXA has some components that should be of no surprise 
to those familiar with this program. We've funded BXA to continue their 
counterterrorism activities, to address their new export control 
responsibilities that were transferred to them from the Department of 
State, and to begin activities related to their responsibilities under 
the Chemical weapons Convention Treaty.
  The Economic Development Administration, a favorite of many of my 
colleagues, is at the higher house level of $340 million, including 
$178 million for Title I Public Works program, $30 million for Title IX 
Economic Adjustment Assistance, $9.1 million for technical assistance, 
and $9.5 million for trade adjustment assistance.
  The bill funded the largest account in the Department of Commerce, 
NOAA, at $2 billion, slightly below the higher Senate number. This 
includes $241 million for the National Ocean Service, $346 million for 
the National Marine Fisheries Service, $277 million for Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Research activities, and $520 million for the National 
Weather Service. One thing NOAA isn't lacking is in the number of 
programs it funds. To mention a few, it should be noted that we've 
provided NOAA with $3.5 million for pfiesteria and algal bloom 
research, a new problem that we became all to aware of over the last 
few months here on the East Coast. We also gave the National Ocean 
Service $44 million for mapping and charting so it can meet its long-
term mission requirements to examine ocean activities. The popular Sea 
Grant program has been continued at $56 million, funds have been 
allocated to study that omnipresent El Nino, and continued support is 
given to our National Weather satellites.
  I am especially pleased that we have included $1 million for our new 
Ocean Policy Commission, the first serious look at our ocean policy and 
NOAA since the Stratton Commission in the

[[Page S12666]]

late 1960's. I've talked with Dr. Baker at NOAA, Admiral Watkins, and 
Dr. Ballard--and we all believe that it is time to reinvigorate our 
ocean programs and put the ``O back in NOAA.'' You know, we all spend 
so much time looking to space and a little mechanical robot on Mars, 
Yet 75% of our planet is ocean, and our exploration of it is woefully 
lacking.
  The hot topic of the Commerce Department this year and the political 
issue that consumed our bill, the Census Bureau, is provided with $550 
million, which is an increase of $326 million. But funding wasn't the 
issue of controversy. Rather, we had a sticky situation to work out 
regarding the fate of the 2000 Decennial Census in terms of whether 
statistical sampling could be used for the last 10 percent of the 
population. The Census language that was finally agreed upon over the 
last few days is a compromise agreement between the White House and GOP 
leadership in the House which allows the Commerce Department to move 
forward with its efforts to plan for and conduct the year 2000 
decennial census. The agreement seeks to ensure that the Federal Courts 
will rule on the constitutionality of using statistical sampling prior 
to the next census by creating expedited judicial review proceedings, 
and it establishes a Census Monitoring Board that will observe and 
monitor all aspects of the preparation of the 2000 census, including 
dress rehearsals.

  Now for the remaining programs in Commerce--the Patent and Trademark 
Office was provided with $716 million, including fees; we have been 
hearing from the Inspector General of Commerce about poor management 
over there and we are going to take a close look at PTO programs next 
fiscal year. With respect to the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, NIST, it is funded at $677 million, slightly lower than 
enacted levels; I'm pleased that Manufacturing Extension Centers are 
funded at $113 million and the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] is 
funded at $193 million. I'm pleased that we seem to finally be getting 
to a sane policy on our Commerce technology programs. They are out lead 
edge in the trade war. This year the rhetoric subsided, and we started 
to get back to normalcy and ``adult supervision'' around here, as 
Senator Dole would say. No one is seriously considering unilaterally 
disarming in the trade war and disestablishing the Department of 
Commerce and our technology programs.
  Now to discuss the Judiciary--the total Judiciary account is funded 
at $3.463 billion, $200 million above enacted levels. We have provided 
the Federal Judges with a cost of living adjustment. And, with respect 
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, we have agreed on a Commission 
to study judicial organization. So we have avoided a veto issue and 
will look to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to pick qualified, 
fair experts to review the situation.
  In the State Department and international programs title, we have 
included $4 billion for the Department of State and have supported the 
consolidation of our international affairs agencies. Within this amount 
we've provided $91 million to State and USIA to accelerate the 
replacement of obsolete computers and communications gear, and $19.6 
million to renovate projects worldwide such as our facilities in 
Beijing, China. $9.5 million is provided for architectural and 
engineering work necessary to move our Embassy to Jerusalem, the 
capital of Israel. I can't think of any other nation where we refuse to 
recognize its capital. It is time for us to put our Embassy in the 
capital of Israel.
  The bill has funded Contributions to International Organizations at 
$955 million to pay the costs assessed to the United States for 
membership in international organizations. Within this amount, $54 
million is for payment of United Nations arrerages. Additionally, 
Contributions of International Peacekeeping Activities is funded at 
$256 million, including $46 million for payment of arrerages. So we 
have met our commitments under the budget agreement. I only hope that 
Chairman Helms and Senator Biden can get a State Department 
Authorization bill through the Congress so we can make meaningful 
changes in New York, and we can reorganize our international affairs 
into a more rational structure.
  I'm especially pleased that the conference adopted language that I 
proposed that requests the State Department to send a reprogramming to 
ensure that the United States maintains its vote in international 
organizations. With respect to organizations like the International 
Rubber Organization [INRO] we are hurting U.S. business and prestige by 
maintaining shortfalls. We are letting other third world nations 
dominate and have put the creditworthiness of the United States in a 
position along with the Ivory Coast and Nigeria. We need to keep 
current and keep our seat at the table.

  Other programs to note within this Title of the bill include $1.1 
billion for United States Information Administration [USIA]. Under the 
USIA account, the National Endowment for Democracy is funded at $30 
million, the East-West Center is provided with $12 million, the North-
South Center is $1.5 million, International Broadcasting is $364 
million, and Educational and Cultural Exchange programs are $198 
million without the Senate-passed overhead certification requirements. 
Additionally, $41.5 million is provided for Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency [ACDA].
  Finally, in the Related Agencies Title of our bill, it should be 
noted that the Maritime Administration was funded at $138 million, with 
a level of $35.5 million for the Maritime Security Program; the Small 
Business Administration is funded at $705 million and for its non-
credit programs, the bill provides $500,000 minimum level for all Small 
Business Development Centers; the Federal Trade Commission is funded at 
$106.5 million; and Legal Services Corporation is at $283 million, 
including Senator Wellstone's floor amendment which ensure that income 
eligibility determinations in cases of domestic violence are made only 
on the basis of the assets and income of the individual.
  Finally, on a separate but related note, I would like to take a 
moment to address a matter of importance regarding the Federal 
Communications Commission, which is provided for this Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill. On July 1, the interstate access 
fees paid by long distance companies to connect their customers to the 
local telephone companies' networks were reduced by over $1.5 billion 
annually. AT&T and MCI responded to these reductions by announcing 
plans to pass these savings to their customers.
  AT&T committed to reduce its day and evening rates by 5 and 15 
percent, respectively, on July 15. One of the news services reported 
that AT&T's residential customers would save $600 million and business 
customers would save $300 million annually. Similarly, MCI announced it 
will pass along these savings to customers as well.
  In the past, AT&T was regulated as a dominant carrier and regularly 
filed its tariffs with the Federal Communications Commission thereby 
providing the necessary verification of these types of savings for 
consumers. With AT&T now being a non-dominant carrier, it no longer has 
to file data with the Commission to justify its rates. There is some 
concern that the tariffs that AT&T and MCI have filed with the 
Commission do not contain a sufficient analysis to demonstrate the 
amount of the long distance price reductions have been passed on to 
consumers. At a minimum, the Commission should verify that amount of 
access charge reductions pledged by these carriers are passed on to 
consumers.
  The Commission should take whatever steps it deems necessary to 
ensure that these carriers furnish sufficient data to verify that 
consumers have indeed benefited from access charge reductions. The 
Commission should also monitor long distance rates to insure that the 
benefits of these reductions are not reversed by subsequent increases.
  Ensuring that the long distance carriers make good on their 
commitment to flow through access charge reductions to consumers in the 
form of lower long distance rates is an important issue that should not 
be overlooked by the Commission.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill and I support it. We have had to 
make some tough decisions, but under the able leadership of Chairman 
Gregg and his able staff, I think we have made the right decisions. 
Senator Gregg has really taken hold of this bill this year. And, of 
course, I want to thank my

[[Page S12667]]

good friends in the other body, Chairman Hal Rogers and Mr. Alan 
Mollohan of West Virginia. They are true professionals. They have 
outstanding staff, first rate professional staff in Jim Kulikowski, 
Therese McAuliffe, Jennifer Miller, Mike Ringler, Jane Wiseman, Pat 
Schleuter, Mark Murray, David Reich, Sally Gaines and Liz White.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the FY 1998 Commerce, Justice, 
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the work of 
Straight and Narrow, a non-profit organization headquartered in 
Paterson, New Jersey, which has been a pioneer in the field of 
substance abuse treatment with impressive results.
  Straight and Narrow serves more than 750 people a day, almost all of 
them poor. Its services cover the whole spectrum of the substance abuse 
field, from effective prevention services for young people to treatment 
of the chemically dependent. Straight and Narrow's programs have been 
proven to deliver effective treatment at a significantly lower cost per 
patient than most treatment programs. National studies of Straight and 
Narrow's work have concluded that its results have far exceeded those 
of other approaches to substance abuse treatment.
  Straight and Narrow is currently working in conjunction with the New 
Jersey Department of Corrections and the National Development and 
Research Institutes [NDRI] on a research and demonstration proposal to 
develop a national model of Straight and Narrow's approach to substance 
abuse treatment. This proposal includes clinical trials of the use of 
patient work combined with psychological counseling, family therapy, 
education, job training, and after care for treatment of substance 
abusers from disadvantaged backgrounds, including non violent 
prisoners.
  Mr. President, I am proud of Straight and Narrow's accomplishments in 
New Jersey, and I believe that it would be most advantageous for the 
Federal Government to assist in the development of a model for the 
implementation of Straight and Narrow's programs on the national level. 
I believe that Straight and Narrow's proposal is one that the 
Department of Justice should seriously consider supporting, and I hope 
the Department will give this proposal serious consideration.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I proceed to some closing bills and 
Executive Calendar, I would like to consult with the Democratic leader. 
So 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________