[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 100 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8825-S8880]
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, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3274

 (Purpose: To authorize the local law enforcement block grant program)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator DeWine and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. DeWine, 
     for himself and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3274.

  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 printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
agreed to.

[[Page S8826]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3274) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not 
present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3275

(Purpose: To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency from implementing or enforcing the public water system treatment 
requirements related to the copper action level of the national primary 
 drinking water regulations for lead and copper until certain studies 
                             are completed)

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

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself and Mr. 
     Hagel, proposes an amendment numbered 3275.

  Mr. KERREY. 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 135, after line 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 423. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OR 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM TREATMENT 
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR COPPER ACTION LEVEL.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available by this 
     or any other Act for any fiscal year may be used by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     implement or enforce the national primary drinking water 
     regulations for lead and copper in drinking water promulgated 
     under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), 
     to the extent that the regulations pertain to the public 
     water system treatment requirements related to the copper 
     action level, until--
       (1) the Administrator and the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention jointly conduct a study to 
     establish a reliable dose-response relationship for the 
     adverse human health effects that may result from exposure to 
     copper in drinking water, that--
       (A) includes an analysis of the health effects that may be 
     experienced by groups within the general population 
     (including infants) that are potentially at greater risk of 
     adverse health effects as the result of the exposure;
       (B) is conducted in consultation with interested States;
       (C) is based on the best available science and supporting 
     studies that are subject to peer review and conducted in 
     accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; and
       (D) is completed not later than 30 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) based on the results of the study and, once peer 
     reviewed and published, the 2 studies of copper in drinking 
     water conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention in the State of Nebraska and the State of 
     Delaware, the Administrator establishes an action level for 
     the presence of copper in drinking water that protects the 
     public health against reasonably expected adverse effects due 
     to exposure to copper in drinking water.
       (b) Current Requirements.--Nothing in this section 
     precludes a State from implementing or enforcing the national 
     primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper in 
     drinking water promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) that are in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, to the extent that the regulations 
     pertain to the public water system treatment requirements 
     related to the copper action level.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself and my 
colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel. We intend to talk on it for a 
brief period of time and then we will withdraw the amendment.
  I offered this amendment in a similar fashion on the HUD and 
independent agencies appropriations bill. We, since that time, entered 
into negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency and it is 
possible that the problems we have in Nebraska will be resolved. It is 
also possible that the issue does not get resolved. If that is the 
case, I want to alert my colleagues that there will be an opportunity 
to vote on this amendment at some point, if Senator Hagel and I and the 
rest of the Nebraska delegation are not able to get satisfaction from 
the Environmental Protection Agency. As I said, they are attempting to 
work with us at this point to try to resolve this problem.
  The problem simply stated is that, under the rulemaking of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, there was established a lead and copper rule. Under 
the procedures of the Safe Drinking Water Act, these rules get reviewed 
every 6 years, so it is an appropriate time--it has been 7 years--an 
appropriate time for us to be reevaluating the science supporting the 
rule itself. That is essentially what we are challenging to begin with.
  There is not a single city in Nebraska that has copper in excess of 
1.3 milligrams in its water supply. So, you say, what is the problem? 
The problem is that if water sits in copper pipes overnight, the first 
draw on that water will produce copper in excess of 1.3 milligrams in 
some of our systems. Thus, our cities are being asked to invest 
millions of dollars to take care of the problem by removing the copper 
in a manner that is acceptable to the EPA. That will become a very 
critical part of this issue, because the EPA tells us what is and is 
not acceptable to take care of a problem that, as I said, has not 
produced a public health problem in Nebraska. We don't have a public 
health problem in Nebraska. We don't have any public health people 
saying we believe there is a clear and present problem with copper, a 
problem such as exists with lead. With lead, there is a public health 
problem, although not in Nebraska. With copper, we have no public 
health problem. What we have, instead, is a scientific evaluation by 
EPA which has caused them to say we should not allow any more than 1.3 
milligrams per liter of copper in drinking water. And as a consequence, 
all across the country EPA is asking cities to invest substantial 
amounts of money to treat and reduce the concentration of copper below 
1.3 milligrams.
  I have a chart here. Some statements have been made by other 
institutions in regard to what is a safe amount of copper, which I 
would like to read, just to establish that there is a significant 
amount of dispute on the science of this.  Not a small amount of 
dispute, but a significant amount.

  The World Health Organization has established 2 milligrams per liter 
as their standard for copper in drinking water. That is 60 percent 
higher than 1.3 milligrams per liter.
  In Canada, they have declared 5.3 milligrams per day as the lowest 
oral dose at which local GI irritation was seen.
  The National Academy of Sciences in 1977 said:

       Limited data are available on the chronic toxicity of 
     copper. The hazard from dietary intakes of up to 5 milligrams 
     per day appear to be quite low.

  A longer statement, made in 1994 by the Centers for Disease Control 
in regards to a study in Nebraska--this study is currently being peer 
reviewed, which EPA needs to have in order to make a final 
determination:

       . . . at the time of the survey, people were not 
     experiencing GI related to the level of [copper] in their 
     drinking water, even though 51 of the selected homes had 
     [copper] drinking water levels that were greater than two 
     times the EPA action level the year prior to the study. . .

  There is a significant amount of scientific disagreement as to what 
the standard ought to be. Again, we are not experiencing a public 
health problem. If we are experiencing a public health problem, let's 
get after it and deal with it. That is what the Safe Drinking Water Act 
is all about. If you don't have a public health problem, you should 
not, in my judgment, be requiring the municipalities to make an 
investment that produces no benefit. That is basically what we are 
talking about here.
  The municipalities have a limited amount of money. They have to go to 
their taxpayers to pay for any treatments to drinking water. We go to 
taxpayers through the state revolving loan fund. We then provide funds 
to the States and the States and municipalities make the determination: 
How do we spend our money so as to maximize the public health in our 
community?

[[Page S8827]]

 The states and the municipalities are telling us that they don't see a 
public health problem with copper, but they are willing to try to work 
with the Environmental Protection Agency to solve this problem.
  Mr. President, first of all, we have asked the Environmental 
Protection Agency to allow the National Academy of Sciences to impanel 
a study group to evaluate the science that underlies this standard--a 
peer reviewed evaluation--and come back and say, ``This is our current 
estimate of the situation, our current estimate based upon reviewing 
all the science, particularly the peer-reviewed science that is out 
there; this is what we see the current situation to be.''
  Allow EPA, in short, to do what the Safe Drinking Water Act says it 
is supposed to do, which is to review these regulations once every 6 
years. It has been 7 years. There is plenty of evidence that would 
indicate it is time for EPA to review this standard, including other 
people's evaluations, and as I said, the presence of an overwhelming 
fact, which is that we are not experiencing public health problems in 
Nebraska.
  In our negotiations--Senator Hagel, Congressmen Bereuter, Christensen 
and Barrett--we had a meeting yesterday with EPA. We are asking EPA to 
empower and to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to do a 
study of the science underlying this rule to determine whether 1.3 
milligrams per liter is reasonable. If we get a ``yes'' on that 
request, which we don't have at the moment--as I said, my colleagues 
may be spared the opportunity of coming down here and voting on this 
amendment.
  There is another problem we are experiencing with EPA. Again, we 
talked with region 7, and we talked, as well, with Administrator 
Browner, and perhaps we can get true flexibility. We have asked for 
flexibility in dealing with this problem. I will describe for my 
colleagues one of the things the Nebraska department of health asked 
the Environmental Protection Agency for, in terms of flexibilities in 
implementing this rule, and the answer from EPA was no. They asked if 
it would be OK if the State of Nebraska paid for the removal of copper 
piping and copper fixtures, get rid of the copper altogether as a 
solution to this problem. The answer from EPA was that this is not one 
of the acceptable solutions that is on their list.

  Eliminating the copper was not an acceptable solution to the EPA, Mr. 
President, nor was it acceptable to engage in a significant public 
health campaign to help people understand--and to ask them to flush, 
once a day, the water in their systems to remove the copper that 
leached into the water after sitting overnight in the pipes--especially 
in smaller communities where you have a relatively small audience. EPA 
was saying things like, ``Well, yeah, but somebody could get up in the 
middle of the night and have to go to the bathroom and maybe forget and 
take a drink of water.''
  This is the sort of reason given to people to support legislation 
like the Safe Drinking Water Act? We want the Government to be a 
positive force in keeping our people safe, but when we hear rationale 
like this, we scratch our heads and wonder whether or not it is all 
worthwhile.
  We seem to frequently run into this sort of inability to bring common 
sense to the process. I am hopeful that Administrator Browner--she was 
very positive yesterday--I am hoping Administrator Browner will, first 
of all, ask the National Academy of Sciences to do a study of the 
underlying science, which is overdue given the conflicting analyses we 
have seen; and, second, to direct region 7 to work with us to get a 
flexible plan that enables us, bottom line, to have our cities and our 
States saying to us, ``We have identified a solution here; we have a 
means of dealing with this; here is what it is going to cost us; we are 
willing to make this investment.''
  Understand, at the community level where they are drinking the water, 
they are saying, ``There are public health problems that are much 
larger than this. We don't have anyone getting sick from copper. We 
understand you all think we ought to be getting sick at these levels, 
but we are not. We are willing to work with you and willing to make an 
investment, but we want that investment to be justified. We want the 
cost to track somehow with the benefit. We want to be able to say here 
is the benefit we are getting with the cost of the expenditure 
itself.''
  I am pleased to inform my colleagues, at the conclusion of Senator 
Hagel's and my remarks on this, we are prepared to withdraw this 
amendment and not put you through the process of voting on this at this 
time. But if we are not able to get a satisfactory answer from 
Administrator Browner, I inform my colleagues there will be an 
opportunity to vote on this amendment.
  My guess is that any of you out there who have municipalities that 
are discussing this with the Environmental Protection Agency--I 
guarantee you, all you have to do is talk to your colleagues in 
Minnesota and ask them how it worked. They implemented the EPA plans 
for copper removal, and it hasn't worked in nearly half of the 130 
water systems they were forced to treat. They did everything the EPA 
told them to do to reduce copper levels and it didn't work. They still 
have the problem and are now scratching their heads and trying to 
figure out what they are going to do next.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire and other colleagues. I 
look forward to coming to the floor and saying that this issue is 
satisfactorily resolved. Administrator Browner, I believe, is making a 
good-faith effort, but we have a ways to go before we are certain we 
don't have to come back and appeal to our colleagues, who are likely 
experiencing similar things, to give us a change in the law that will 
give us time to allow these scientific studies to be reviewed, and 
possibly, this rule revised.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine-and-a-half minutes remain for the 
proponents. The Chair recognizes the junior Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment sponsored by my good 
friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.
  As Senator Kerrey has very directly stated, this amendment is an 
attempt to bring some much-needed common sense--common sense, Mr. 
President, common sense--to the EPA regulatory process. We are not in 
any way attempting to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  I commend my colleague from Rhode Island, the distinguished chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, for his 
hard work in crafting this bill over the years and having brought it up 
to date and focused on what is important, and that is to protect the 
safety of our drinking water. It is important that we be clear on this 
point. We are not attempting to amend the Public Works Committee's hard 
efforts, the Safe Drinking Water Act. No attempt is being made to amend 
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  What we are asking here is EPA delay the enforcement of copper 
regulations until the completion of scientific studies that are already 
underway. Regulations imposed by the EPA on copper levels in drinking 
water are unrealistic and will impose financial hardships on a number 
of communities in Nebraska. Is it too much to ask--really, is it too 
much to ask--that scientific studies be completed before costs are 
imposed? Mr. President, that is just common sense.
  The town of Hastings, NE, population 23,000, will be forced to pay 
over $1 million in the first year to comply with these onerous 
regulations and $250,000 the year after that. More than 60 Nebraska 
water systems face similar financial burdens because of the EPA's 
enforcement of these copper regulations.
  The most incredible part of this issue is that the EPA has not proven 
that there is a health risk. As my friend, Senator Kerrey, said, they 
want to prove it; they want to tell us we have it, but they can't make 
the scientific link. The EPA used case studies to set these copper 
levels, some of which are over 40 years old, and often included only a 
few people. One EPA case study from 1957 refers to 15 nurses, 10 of 
which got sick after drinking cocktails

[[Page S8828]]

with between 5.3 and 32 milligrams of copper--very strong scientific 
evidence.

  Yet, a 1994 interim study conducted by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention found that EPA's copper standard seriously 
exaggerated health effects in Nebraska due to water consumption. In 
comparison, the CDC study conducted in 1994 to examine almost 200 
households in Nebraska in a controlled, scientific way, found no 
relationship between the copper concentrations and illness.
  One of the problems in Nebraska, Mr. President, is that copper does 
not come from the city's water system. It comes from copper pipes--
copper pipes--in individual homes. Yet only six of the homes tested, in 
Hastings, NE, had copper levels above the EPA standards. And for those 
six homes, the EPA is going to force the people of the entire town in 
Nebraska to spend millions of dollars to change the system.
  This is folly. This is nonsense. This is one of the most clear 
examples of EPA zealousness that I think I have ever seen.
  The State of Nebraska has attempted to make its case with the EPA but 
has been repeatedly dismissed. The State suggested allowing residents 
to let the water run in the taps for a short period of time before 
using water for drinking. Nebraska's Department of Health and Human 
Services would have used a public education program to ensure that this 
``flushing'' method was done correctly. Residents already did this on 
their own and copper levels dropped to nearly zero--copper levels 
dropped to nearly zero--after letting the tap run for a few seconds. 
The State also said it would pay to replace the copper plumbing for 
affected households.
  The attorney general of the State of Nebraska has filed a lawsuit to 
try to block the EPA enforcement of these regulations until we have 
some sound science. And the Governor, Governor Nelson, is involved.
  The attitude of the EPA toward the people of Nebraska has been one of 
supreme arrogance. Some of my colleagues may wonder why this is such a 
problem in Nebraska. Why haven't they heard about this in their States?
  Well, Nebraska is unique, not only because we play decent football, 
Mr. President, but also because we rely, almost exclusively, on 
groundwater for our water supplies. Because of this, some towns and 
cities in Nebraska do not have a central water system but a number of 
systems that feed into the main system.
  For these towns of Nebraska, treating drinking water means treating 
each individual well, which drastically increases costs. And for what? 
The people of Nebraska do not want unsafe drinking water; of course 
they don't. If there was a real health risk, they would pay to have the 
water treated. But when the scientific evidence shows no health risk, 
when the EPA rejects every commonsense alternative--many of what my 
colleague from Nebraska talked about--what are the people of Nebraska 
to do? They have turned to their congressional delegation. They have 
turned to their Congress and asked for help.
  The Constitution gives Congress the authority to decide whether or 
not Federal agencies can spend the money of the American taxpayers, 
what they spend it on, and why they spend it. Too often we have 
neglected this authority and let Federal agencies run right over the 
top of the American people, the very people who pay the bills--the 
taxpayers. But we don't have a voice. That is why Senator Kerrey and I 
are on the floor today.
  We are here to bring the case of the people of Nebraska to the 
Senate, as our colleagues are doing in the House. We have no other 
recourse, Mr. President. Again, we are not attempting to amend the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. We are asking to change the regulations so that we 
have some ability, some flexibility to wait until we have sound 
science. What an outrageous request. What an outrageous request.
  Mr. President, dealing with the EPA is like wandering around in the 
Land of Oz, this mystical land. But we wish to pull back the curtain 
and get to some reality and common sense. It is my hope, as is the hope 
of my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Nebraska, that our 
colleagues will listen to this plea and will assist us in this effort. 
We are grateful for an opportunity to tell our story--a real story.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Who yields time?
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters in 
support for this amendment from the National Governors' Association, 
the Central Nebraska Mayor's Association, the League of Nebraska 
Municipalities, the city of Columbus, the city of Hastings, the village 
of Snyder, and the village of Fairmont be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1998.
     Hon. Bob Kerrey,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerrey: We are writing to share our concerns 
     about the lead and copper rule promulgated by the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act. Communities in many states, particularly smaller 
     communities, face substantial costs under this rule. We 
     understand that serious questions have been raised about the 
     rule, including the justification for the current action 
     level, the cost effectiveness of the rule, and the 
     replicability of the sampling procedures used under the rule. 
     We understand that the rule may also interfere with the 
     implementation of other pending regulations, such as the 
     Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Such interference 
     could have serious adverse health consequences.
       In the face of these uncertainties, we urge you to take 
     steps to ensure that the lead and copper rule is based on the 
     best available, peer-reviewed science and is subject to risk 
     assessment, comparative risk assessment, and risk management 
     techniques that include analyses of costs and benefits. The 
     Governors have recommended that for all regulations with a 
     substantial potential impact on public health or the economy, 
     the regulatory agency should be required to certify that the 
     regulation is likely to produce benefits that justify the 
     costs. In determining that the benefits justify the costs, 
     the agency should consider the full scope of qualitative and 
     quantitative costs and benefits, exercise sound judgment, use 
     realistic assumptions, weigh all reasonable alternatives, and 
     strike an appropriate balance between costs and benefits.
       We would appreciate your assistance in ensuring that EPA 
     satisfies these recommendations in the case of the lead and 
     copper rule. Thank you for your consideration of this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
     E. Benjamin Nelson,
       Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
     Marc Racicot,
       Vice Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
                                  ____

                                                  Central Nebraska


                                          Mayor's Association,

                                                     June 8, 1998.
     Hon. Robert Kerrey,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerrey: We are writing to convey to you the 
     solid support of four major Nebraska communities for the 
     recent efforts by the Nebraska congressional delegation 
     regarding the lead and copper rule designation in the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act. In an April 24, 1998 letter to USEPA, 
     Nebraska's congressional delegation unanimously urged 
     bringing common sense and good scientific evidence to the 
     copper rule. We support that position and encourage you to 
     continue pressing this issue in our behalf, as well as that 
     of many other Nebraska communities.
       As you are well aware, epidemiological evidence generated 
     by the Centers for Disease Control indicates that the 
     drinking water standards for copper are arbitrarily 
     established at levels far below those believed to pose any 
     threat to human health. Incredibly, the level established by 
     USEPA is less than the recommended daily minimum amount of 
     cooper for human consumption, established by another federal 
     agency. What is more unnerving, is the fact that cities are 
     being mandated to make significant changes to their water 
     delivery systems, not because of the source of supply, or 
     because of the water systems themselves, but because of the 
     copper water services in private homes. This of course can be 
     solved by running the water for a few seconds each morning 
     before taking any water for drinking purposes, which, we 
     suspect, is a universal practice. Viewed another way, does 
     USEPA have any evidence whatsoever that anyone is consuming 
     water with ``unaccepted levels'' of copper in it?
       We believe that USEPA has strayed from its original mandate 
     of ensuring a clean environment. Instead, communities 
     throughout the country are confronted with the hypertechnical 
     wanderings of a bureaucratic juggernaut, promulgating 
     unreasonably stringent environmental standards that lack good 
     scientific evidence, ignore practical testing procedures, and 
     are totally devoid of any common sense.

[[Page S8829]]

       It is particularly vexing to deal with unreasonable 
     standards which will cost Nebraskans millions of dollars 
     while providing no apparent benefit. Cities are asked by 
     their populations to provide essential services that enhance 
     the quality of life of their citizens. Dollars are tight and 
     public scrutiny is high. The waste of time, effort, and 
     precious dollars on misguided notions like the copper rule 
     for drinking water, is totally unacceptable. Please continue 
     and intensify your efforts to bring good scientific evidence 
     to these and other rules, regulations and standards of USEPA.
       Thank you again for your interest in this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Ken Grady,
       Mayor of Grand Island.
     James D. Whitaker,
       Mayor of North Platte.
     J. Phillip Odom,
       Mayor of Hastings.
     Peter S. --------,
       Mayor of Kearney.
                                  ____

                                                         League of


                                      Nebraska Municipalities,

                                       Lincoln, NE, July 17, 1998.
     Senator Bob Kerrey,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerrey: Thanks for your attempted heroics late 
     (verrrrry late) last night on behalf of Nebraska municipal 
     water distribution systems. The staff at the League of 
     Nebraska municipalities informed me that you used 
     considerable debating skills and knowledge of procedure to 
     try to amend a measure to give Nebraskans some relief from 
     the EPA Copper Rule. It is not that often anymore that you 
     get to see good debating skills put to use in legislative 
     process, but you apparently made Nebraska look good.
       Again, I appreciate all the work that you and your staff 
     have put in on this issue. As you know, and very effectively 
     communicated, compliance with this regulation will cost 
     Nebraskans millions of dollars for little or no health 
     benefit. Nebraska municipal officials are not against the 
     protection of public health. They live in the very 
     communities that they serve. But meeting the ``at the tap-
     first draw'' copper standard seems to be throwing money away.
           Sincerely,

                                               Jim Van Marter,

                                                 League President,
     Mayor, Holdrege, Nebraska.
                                  ____



                                                 Columbus, NE,

                                                    July 10, 1998.
     Hon. Robert Kerrey,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerrey: On behalf of the City of Columbus, I 
     would like to lend our support to your amendment to place a 
     prohibition on the enforcement of the Copper Ruling by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
       From all indications, this ruling appears unsupported by 
     scientific evidence. If this should be enforced, it will cost 
     our city thousands of dollars.
       I ask that you give us every consideration in fighting this 
     ruling. We appreciate your leadership in helping us 
     concerning this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Gary Giebelhaus,
     Mayor.
                                  ____



                                                 Hastings, NE,

                                                    July 10, 1998.
     Re Copper regulations.

     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Rayburn Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: I am writing to you on behalf of the 
     citizens and water rate payers of the City of Hastings, 
     Nebraska, an agricultural community of 22,000 people located 
     in the south central part of the state. The drinking water 
     system for our community is operated by our local Board of 
     Public Works. Tests of drinking water (taken in private 
     homes) indicate that the levels of copper in the water barely 
     exceeds the action level for copper established pursuant to 
     the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act. The State of Nebraska has 
     issued an order to the City, directing implementation of 
     costly ``optimal corrosion control treatment''.
       USEPA's active level for copper in drinking water is based 
     upon two outdated (one is at least 40 years old) and 
     unreliable studies. Recent epidemiological evidence generated 
     by the Centers for Disease Control indicates that the 
     drinking water standards for copper are arbitrarily 
     established at levels far below those believed to pose any 
     threat to human health. It is most noteworthy that the level 
     established by USEPA is less than the federally recommended 
     daily minimum amount of copper for human consumption. In 
     fact, the amount of copper in a multiple vitamin tablet 
     exceeds the USEPA's action level.
       Senator, we, and many other communities around the country, 
     are being directed by government to expand millions of 
     dollars on our water systems in just a few short years, with 
     literally no reasonable expectation of benefit to public 
     health. This makes absolutely no sense at all. We would hope 
     that you agree that it is foolish to act on poor information, 
     when good information is readily attainable. We need your 
     help. (Our water department, which operates at a loss most 
     years, estimates that installation of the required 
     modifications will cost $1,000,000 initially, with an added 
     operations expense of approximately $250,000 per year.)
       Nebraska Senator Robert Kerrey and Chuck Hagel have 
     introduced legislation which would prohibit USEPA's 
     implementation or enforcement of this rule until more 
     reliable studies can be completed and evaluated. The expected 
     time frame for obtaining this much more reliable information 
     is less than 30 months.
       We ask that you join our Nebraska Delegation in its efforts 
     to gain a reprieve which makes eminent sense. In our 
     estimation, there are no risks associated with taking the 
     time to get the facts straight. We do not know of even one 
     copper related illness, belly ache or sniffle in the more 
     than one hundred year history of this county. I can tell you 
     without fear of contradiction, that if we had the one million 
     dollars and more to spend, the public health and quality of 
     life in our community would be much better served by spending 
     that money on fire trucks and police cars.
       Public health and safety are the top priority of Hastings 
     city government. We, and many other units of local government 
     are on the front line. But we have precious few resources and 
     dollars for this effort. Please help prevent the bureaucratic 
     misdirection of our dollars and resources, so that we can do 
     what is best for our community.
       You can undoubtedly discern from the tone of this letter, 
     that I am already convinced that further studies will show 
     that the action level for copper is unreasonably low. My 
     limited review of available data, and information provided by 
     those knowledgeable on the matter, unanimously support this 
     conviction. Please rest assured, however, that Hastings will 
     expeditiously comply with whatever standard emanates from the 
     more current studies. We have faith in good science. Recent 
     history shows that Congress shares that faith.
       Thank you for your interest in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  J. Phillip Odom,
     Mayor of Hastings.
                                  ____



                                                   Snyder, NE,

                                                    July 14, 1998.
     Senator Robert Kerrey,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerrey: I am sending this letter to inform you 
     of the costs of a small town to comply with the copper rule. 
     The population of the Village of Snyder is 280, and we have a 
     water budget of $31,000.00 for this fiscal year. Snyder also 
     has two (2) wells, according to our engineer our capital 
     expenses would be $30,000.00 for building modification and 
     equipment purchases. The ongoing operational costs including 
     chemicals, training, administrative, and repairs/maintenance 
     would cost $12,000.00. The first year would cost the Village 
     $42,000.00, and require us to budget an additional $12,000.00 
     per year. If we have to use bonds to pay for the capital 
     costs, there will be additional expenses.
       This does not include the cost of a corrosion control study 
     as required by the administrative order. Our engineer 
     estimated between $3,000.00 and $3,500.00, or the quarterly 
     notices that we have to publish. There is also the cost of 
     additional water testing that we are required to perform.
       Although, the easy answer is to raise rates it is not 
     always the best one.
       I would like to thank you for your efforts to help us.
       I am enclosing a separate cost breakdown.
           Sincerely,

                                                Joel D. Hunke,

                                                      Chairperson,
                                        Village Board of Trustees.
       Enclosure.


    Village of Snyder estimated cost for compliance lead and copper 
                          administrative order

Capital expenses:
  1. Modify well house buildings at $10,000/building............$20,000
  2. Purchase equipment at $5,000/well...........................10,000
                                                             __________
                                                             
      Total capital expenses....................................$30,000
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Ongoing operational costs:
  1. Chemicals at $0.10/1,000 gallons of water 1997 production was 
    44,675,000 gallons............................................4,468
  2. Monitoring, testing, training, administrative $3,000/yr for 1st 
    well and $2,500/yr for 2nd well...............................5,500
  3. Repairs and Maintenance $1,000/well/year.....................2,000
                                                             __________
                                                             
      Total operational costs....................................11,968
      Grand total................................................41,968


                                  ____
                                                 Fairmont, NE,

                                                    July 13, 1998.
     Re Lead and copper ruling.

     Senator Robert Kerrey,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerrey: The Fairmont Village Board of Trustees 
     would like to thank you for your efforts to assist municipal 
     water systems in Nebraska which are currently under 
     Administrative Order for violation of copper standards in 
     drinking water.
       I am enclosing a letter from our engineers pertaining to 
     the costs if Fairmont would

[[Page S8830]]

     have to comply with the Administrative Order. In review it 
     would cost the village $45,000 for the capital outlay and 
     approximately $18,000 annually for ongoing operations costs.
       Our village board believes that the copper action level is 
     excessively stringent, has an excessive safety margin and is 
     not supported by sound scientific data and studies. The 
     ruling requires the village to expend public funds for 
     monitoring and treatment of public water supply system of the 
     Village in order to correct contaminations which occur within 
     the service lines and plumbing systems owned by private 
     persons or entities, and our board does not feel that public 
     funds should be used in this manner.
       Thank you for your assistance in this matter and if you 
     need additional information, please contact our office or the 
     League of Nebr. Municipalities.
           Sincerely,

                                           David R. Seggerman,

                                     Chairperson, Fairmont Village
                                                Board of Trustees.
       Enclosure.


                                     Johnson Erickson O'Brien,

                                          Wahoo, NE, July 8, 1998.
     Re Lead and copper rule estimated cost for compliance.

     Linda Carroll,
     Clerk,
     Fairmont, NE.
       Dear Linda: This letter is in response to recent requests 
     that we have gotten regarding the cost of compliance with the 
     Lead and Copper Rule.
       Every case will be different, but I believe that the 
     following will provide a good general guideline for 
     determining how much it will cost to deal with the Lead and 
     Copper Rule.
       C. In general, most well buildings are not set up to 
     provide adequate space or provide an appropriate environment 
     for use as a chemical feed room. Depending on the building 
     site conditions and the layout, we believe it is likely that 
     the well building will need to be expanded and rough cost for 
     the building modifications would be $10,000 per well (POE).
       D. The type of chemical treatment that will be necessary 
     for each well will depend on the detailed chemical analyses 
     of the well water. However, for planning purposes, we would 
     estimate that the cost for chemical feed equipment and 
     electrical modifications needed could be approximately 
     $5,000/well (POE) and the raw cost of chemical would be 
     approximately 10 cents/1,000 gallons of water pumped.
       E. In addition, to the chemical cost, it would be 
     anticipated that considerable additional cost/time will be 
     involved in the daily monitoring of the chemical feed 
     systems, testing, and administrative time involved in 
     maintaining records, etc. It would appear reasonable to 
     assume that the costs could be around $3,000/yr. for the 
     first well, and maybe $2,500 for each added well.
       F. Also, I would expect that repairs and maintenance costs 
     could be $1,000/well/year to keep pumps and controls updated/
     operational.
       In conclusion, we believe that costs for Lead and Copper 
     Rule compliance would be:

     A. Capital Expenditure Costs
       1. Building Modification: $10,000/well (POE)
       2. Equipment Costs: $5,000/well (POE)
       Total: $15,000/well (POE)
     B. Ongoing Operational Costs
       1. Chemical Costs: 10 cents/1,000 gal. pumped
       2. Operational/Administrative Costs: $3,000/yr. 1st well 
         (POE) $2,500/yr. each added well (POE)
       3. Repairs/Maintenance: $1,000/yr./well (POE)

       If you have any questions regarding this letter or if you 
     need anything further from us, please feel free to advise.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ron Botorff.
       A. Village of Fairmont has 3 wells @$15,000.00=$45,000.00 
     Capital set up.
       B. Village of Fairmont 1997 water use 75,000,000 
     gallons1,000 @10 cents=7,500.00 Chemical Cost.
       Operation/Admin--1 well @$3,000.00+2 wells 
     @$2,500.00=8,000.00 Oper/Admin.
       Repairs & Maint. 3 wells @$1,000.00=3,000.00 Rep. & Maint.
       In review, the capital expenditure for the Village of 
     Fairmont would be approximately $45,000.00 and annual 
     expenditures for ongoing operational costs would be 
     approximately $18,500.

  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back the 
remainder of my time. I do not know if--Senator Chafee is probably not 
going to speak because I told him we would withdraw the amendment.
  I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, if you don't want to take 
the additional 10 minutes, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no objection to the Senator from Nebraska 
withdrawing the amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. Do we need to yield back time in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senator should yield back his time.
  Mr. GREGG. I will yield back our time.


                      Amendment No. 3275 Withdrawn

  Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by 
myself and Senator Hagel be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 3275) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. What is the parliamentary status now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments are in order.


                           Amendment No. 3276

  (Purpose: To condition the availability of funds for United States 
               diplomatic and consular posts in Vietnam)

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, therefore, I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration on behalf of myself, 
Senator John McCain, and Senator Bob Kerrey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] for himself, Mr. 
     McCain and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an amendment numbered 3276.

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

       Beginning on page 96, strike line 23 and all that follows 
     through line 12 on page 100 and insert the following:
       Sec. 405. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay for 
     any cost incurred for--
       (1) opening or operating any United States diplomatic or 
     consular post in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that was 
     not operating on July 11, 1995,
       (2) expanding any United States diplomatic or consular post 
     in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that was operating on 
     July 11, 1995, or
       (3) increasing the total number of personnel assigned to 
     United States diplomatic or consular posts in the Socialist 
     Republic of Vietnam above the levels existing on July 11, 
     1995,

     unless the President certifies within 60 days the following:
       (A) Based upon all information available to the United 
     States Government, the Government of the Socialist Republic 
     of Vietnam is fully cooperating in good faith with the United 
     States in the following:
       (i) Resolving discrepancy cases, live sightings, and field 
     activities.
       (ii) Recovering and repatriating American remains.
       (iii) Accelerating efforts to provide documents that will 
     help lead to fullest possible accounting of prisoners of war 
     and missing in action.
       (iv) Providing further assistance in implementing 
     trilateral investigations with Laos.
       (B) The remains, artifacts, eyewitness accounts, archival 
     material, and other evidence associated with prisoners of war 
     and missing in action recovered from crash sites, military 
     actions, and other locations in Southeast Asia are being 
     thoroughly analyzed by the appropriate laboratories with the 
     intent of providing surviving relatives with scientifically 
     defensible, legal determinations of death or other 
     accountability that are fully documented and available in 
     unclassified and unredacted form to immediate family members.

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, are we operating under a time agreement 
on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. KERRY. Twenty minutes equally divided.
  Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may use. I ask that 
the Chair let me know when I have used 7 minutes.
  Madam President, for the past 3 years we have had language in the 
appropriations bill that prohibits funding for the expansion of our 
diplomatic presence in Vietnam unless the President of the United 
States certifies that Vietnam is cooperating on the POW/MIA issue.
  The fact is that the standard currently in law requires a tough 
certification by the President. The President has to certify that 
Vietnam is fully cooperating. The President has to certify that in good 
faith Vietnam is cooperating in four specific areas: resolving 
discrepancy cases, live sightings and field activities, remains 
recovery and repatriation, providing documents, and assisting in the 
trilateral investigations with Laos.
  That is a fair and a sensible standard, Madam President. However, 
section 405

[[Page S8831]]

of the pending bill that has been put into the bill creates a whole new 
standard. It creates a standard of significant increased capacity for 
subjectivity and for distortion and, frankly, for an unreasonableness, 
which, if adopted, would set back our relationship and our capacity to 
build the progress and relationship not just on POW/MIA but on human 
rights and other issues where we have been making progress.
  The amendment that I offer with Senator McCain from Arizona and 
Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska would strike section 405, replacing it 
with the language in the current law that requires a certification from 
the President, and requires the same standard of certification that we 
have had over the course of the last years.
  In our judgment, section 405 will not only undo much of the 
cooperation that we have but could conceivably set back our capacity to 
be able to find answers on the POW/MIA issue.  We believe it would 
undermine the policy of normalization and it would create an 
unreasonable certification standard in an effort to prevent the 
expansion of our diplomatic presence and, thus, our relationship.

  Current law requires the President to certify whether or not Vietnam 
is cooperating in good faith. I want the Senate to know that the 
President made that certification on March 4 of this year, as he has 
for the past 2 years.
  Section 405, however, in the legislation that we seek to strike, 
incorporates a standard that requires the President to somehow say that 
they are fully forthcoming, fully cooperating in good faith, and the 
words ``fully forthcoming'' present all kinds of complications about 
what is possible to give, what is not possible, what documents somebody 
may have, whether or not it is possible to give them, and raises issues 
that the POW/MIA committee and those who have been involved in this 
issue for a long period of time have argued for some period of time and 
resolve with the language that is currently in the law.
  Over the many years that I have been involved in this issue, we have 
always had a struggle over this central question of what they have, 
what they don't have, who may have it, who has control of it, and if 
you get caught in the total subjectivity of a standard that no one in 
the intelligence community or elsewhere believes they can possibly 
meet, all we do is create a mischief in the process.
  There is no question that we need to keep pressing for documents. We 
are. We just had a whole new slug of documents turned over that we are 
in the process of translating. We discovered new items from many of 
these unilateral turnovers of documents. The point is, they are 
happening because there is a cooperative effort, because we are engaged 
in marching down a road together in order to try to assert the truth 
here.
  I think we also have to recognize that just as we deem certain 
documents pertaining to the military and to our country's national 
security as being classifiable or sensitive, so do they. We may not 
view it the same way, but clearly they are going to present, and their 
agencies--whether the defense agency, the interior agency--will argue 
that one document or another represents a security risk. So we have to 
work through the process of that. If we hold ourselves accountable to a 
standard where we are subject to some agency or bureaucrat being less 
than forthcoming in that regard about a document we don't even know 
they have, it seems to me we are creating an impossible situation and 
an impossible standard.
  In addition to that, section 405 also adds other new conditions to 
the process. It requires Vietnam to resolve hearsay reports which 
pertain to the possible or confirmed prisoner of war/missing in action. 
Apart from the question of how anyone resolves a hearsay report, this 
requirement would add an enormous burden to both the American and 
Vietnamese teams, who are on the ground, who are pursuing nonhearsay 
reports. They are already tasked on a very clear schedule of trying to 
determine every single nonhearsay report, absolutely certain evidence 
they have, which requires them to go out into the field, interview, 
dig, do a whole host of other very time-consuming efforts. To suggest 
that every single hearsay report has got to be resolved to the 
exclusion of the confirmed reports that they are already pursuing is 
to, again, raise this to a standard of absurdity.
  The fact is, we have made enormous progress on the POW/MIA issue 
precisely because of Vietnamese cooperation. In the last 5 years, 
American and Vietnamese teams have concluded 30 joint field activities 
in Vietnam; 233 sets of remains have been repatriated, and 97 have been 
identified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 7 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is my understanding I have 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield myself 7 minutes at this point.
  I rise to support the committee language that is in the bill before 
us with respect to Vietnam. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to listen carefully to the debate between myself and my colleague 
from Massachusetts.
  It seems that we can depend on three things anymore in America--
death, taxes, and the fact that Senators Kerry and McCain will somehow 
oppose any language that I try to support in regard to the POW/MIA 
issue.
  Senator Kerry said that this is not workable, that the term ``fully 
forthcoming'' is not workable. Of course it is workable. It is workable 
because the language says that the President's judgment, the 
President's own judgment, is based on information available to the U.S. 
Government. There is nothing unworkable about that language at all. It 
is very workable. The President has continued to certify the very 
language that the Senator from Massachusetts wants to revert back to, 
which was language that I helped to write and put in the bill last 
year. We are simply upgrading it a little bit. That is not anything to 
be concerned about. The President still does the certification. It is 
his judgment. No one is changing that. I might not agree with the 
President's judgment from time to time, but he has the right to make 
that judgment under the law. That is the issue here.
  I hope the Senators and their staffs who are monitoring this debate 
will look at section 405 to see what the Senator from Massachusetts is 
striking--it is found on page 96 of the committee bill--because it is 
reasonable. I think most Senators will resist the effort to strike it. 
It is reasonable.
  Senator Gregg and the committee support this language. The committee 
language continues a certification process that was begun in 1995 when 
the President established full diplomatic relations with Vietnam. It 
has continued, through this year, when the President issued his latest 
certification in March. Now, whether or not we agree or disagree with 
the President's certification is not the issue. I happen to disagree. I 
didn't believe he should have certified based on the evidence. But he 
did, and he has the right to do that under the law.
  What the committee has done is to further modify the language in an 
appropriate manner based on developments and communications from the 
executive branch over the last year. Each time, in the end, the 
President has complied with the certification process. I have no doubt 
he will do it this time. In fact, let me refer to the President's own 
words when he issued the most recent certification in March of this 
year.

       In making this determination, I wish to reaffirm my 
     continuing personal commitment to the entire POW/MIA 
     community, especially to the immediate families, relatives, 
     friends, and supporters of these brave individuals, and to 
     reconfirm that the central, guiding principle of my Vietnam 
     policy is to achieve the fullest possible accounting of our 
     prisoners of war and missing in action.

  That is the President. I have that document right here, signed by the 
President of the United States.
  I ask unanimous consent this document be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [Presidential Determination No. 98-16]

                 Memorandum for the Secretary of State

     Subject: Vietnamese Cooperation in Accounting for United 
         States Prisoners of War and Missing in Action (POW/MIA).
       As provided under section 609 of the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State,

[[Page S8832]]

     the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, 
     Public Law 105-119, I hereby determine, based on all 
     information available to the United States Government, that 
     the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is fully 
     cooperating in good faith with the United States in the 
     following four areas related to achieving the fullest 
     possible accounting for Americans unaccounted for as a result 
     of the Vietnam War:
       (1) resolving discrepancy cases, live sightings, and field 
     activities;
       (2) recovering and repatriating American remains;
       (3) accelerating efforts to provide documents that will 
     help lead to the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIAs; and
       (4) providing further assistance in implementing trilateral 
     investigations with Laos.
       I further determine that the appropriate laboratories 
     associated with POW/MIA accounting are thoroughly analyzing 
     remains, material, and other information, and fulfilling 
     their responsibilities as set forth in subsection (B) of 
     section 609, and information pertaining to this accounting is 
     being made available to immediate family members in 
     compliance with 50 U.S.C. 435 note.
       I have been advised by the Department of Justice and 
     believe that section 609 is unconstitutional because it 
     purports to use a condition on appropriations as a means to 
     direct my execution of responsibilities that the Constitution 
     commits exclusively to the President. I am providing this 
     determination as a matter of comity, while reserving the 
     position that the condition enacted in section 609 is 
     unconstitutional.
       In making this determination I have taken into account all 
     information available to the United States Government as 
     reported to me, the full range of ongoing accounting 
     activities in Vietnam, including joint and unilateral 
     Vietnamese efforts, and the concrete results we have attained 
     as a result.
       Finally, in making this determination, I wish to reaffirm 
     my continuing personal commitment to the entire POW/MIA 
     community, especially to the immediate families, relatives, 
     friends, and supporters of these brave individuals, and to 
     reconfirm that the central, guiding principle of my Vietnam 
     policy is to achieve the fullest possible accounting of our 
     prisoners of war and missing in action.
       You are authorized and directed to report this 
     determination to the appropriate committees of the Congress 
     and to publish it in the Federal Register.
                                               William J. Clinton.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. For the Senator from Massachusetts and 
others now to basically prevent the committee from updating the 
language based on the President's own words, and based on the words of 
Sandy Berger and others, sends a terrible message, a message that I 
simply do not understand, for the life of me, why we have to fight this 
battle day in and day out, year in and year out, on the floor of the 
Senate. There is nothing wrong with this language, I say to my 
colleague, with all respect. The President still has the right to 
certify. And he does in spite of the fact that I disagree, many times, 
with his reasoning for the certification.
  To prevent the committee from updating this language sends, I think, 
a terrible message to the Government of Vietnam: It is OK, do whatever 
you want. Go ahead, provide us documents, don't provide us documents; 
provide us access, don't provide us access, it doesn't matter. The 
families of 2,000-plus American service personnel still unaccounted 
for, don't worry about it. Our Nation's veterans, we no longer attach 
the same priorities to the POW/MIA effort in our development of 
relations with Vietnam which we had in the last 3 years. Don't worry 
about that. Let's go ahead, pursue lines of trade, sell oil, buy oil, 
whatever. Set up a full diplomatic mission. Don't worry about these 
things. Don't worry about POW/MIA. That is a side issue that is not 
really important.
  That is reason alone for the Senators and my colleagues to table this 
amendment. Don't send this kind of message to the families. God knows 
they have been through enough. They support the language in the 
committee bill. That should be enough right there. These are the people 
who have suffered. It hasn't been Senator Smith; it hasn't been others 
on the Senate floor--well, in some cases, there has been great 
suffering by some of my colleagues in the Vietnam war. But it is the 
families of the missing who want this message. We should do it for 
them, if for no other reason. They have been in touch with me as 
recently as this morning. They passionately object to what the Senator 
from Massachusetts is trying to do. They have told me that.
  I ask unanimous consent that their statements be printed in the 
Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I have statements from the League of 
Families, the Alliance of Families, from 70 former POWs, from major 
veterans groups, including the American Legion. And I know that others 
support what we are doing, like the National Vietnam Veterans 
Coalition, and many others support the language and support the 
committee process.
  So I hope that we will defeat this effort.

                               Exhibit 1

         National League of Families of American Prisoners and 
           Missing in Southeast Asia,
                                     Washington DC, July 23, 1998.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: The POW/MIA families strongly support 
     the language currently in the Commerce, State, Justice 
     appropriations bill as the best way to motivate the Socialist 
     Republic of Vietnam government to account for Americans still 
     missing from the Vietnam War.
       The League is not surprised that the Clinton 
     Administration, faced with another Congressional 
     certification requirement, prefers broad language that is 
     politically easier to finesse, than specific criteria that 
     must be met. However, at the League's 29th Annual Meeting, 
     U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, the Honorable Douglas ``Pete'' 
     Peterson, expressed frustration that the language was too 
     broad, requiring either certification of full cooperation or 
     nothing, leaving no room for incremental judgments.
       The League's position is based upon past and current 
     official assessments of what Vietnam can do unilaterally to 
     account for missing Americans. Unilateral actions do not 
     simply mean support for joint field operations, a necessary 
     process in the longer term, but steps by the government of 
     Vietnam to locate and return identifiable remains and provide 
     relevant documents that are still being withheld.
       Congress has the ability to stand behind those who serve--
     past, present and future--by retaining the language in the 
     Committee's bill. Efforts by Senators John Kerry and John 
     McCain to remove this language may be well-intended, but are 
     illogical. There is no risk that Vietnam will halt bilateral 
     POW/MIA cooperation and risk achieving their priority mission 
     of MFN. By retaining the Committee's language, Congress can 
     signal it recognizes that more can and should be done by 
     Vietnam on this issue of stated highest national priority to 
     the Clinton Administration and understandable importance to 
     the American people.
       Please stand with the POW/MIA families and America's 
     veterans and oppose the Kerry/McCain amendment to remove 
     relevant POW/MIA language.
           Respectfully,
                                              Ann Mills Griffiths,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                National Alliance of Families,

                                      Bellevue, WA, July 21, 1998.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     Dirksen Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: The membership of the National Alliance 
     of Families strongly opposes any effort to weaken the 
     Committee's language which is already in the Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary Appropriations Bill No. S. 
     2260 for the fiscal year 1999 in respect to the POW/MIA 
     Accounting (Sec. 405).
       We support your efforts on behalf of our loved ones who 
     still remain Prisoner of War and/or Missing in Action from 
     the Vietnam War.
       Thank you for your generous and strong dedication to those 
     men who have served their Country these many years.
           Sincerely,
                                           Dolores Apodaca Alfond,
     National Chairperson.
                                  ____


       An Open Letter to President Clinton From Former U.S. POWs


                                   American Defense Institute,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 10, 1995.
     The Honorable William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As former U.S. Prisoners of war during 
     the Vietnam Conflict, we are writing to request you not to 
     establish normal diplomatic relations with Vietnam until you 
     can certify that there has been full disclosure and 
     cooperation by Hanoi on the POW/MIA issue. While we 
     appreciate Vietnam's support for U.S. crash site recovery and 
     archival research efforts, we know first-hand Vietnam's 
     ability to withhold critical information while giving the 
     appearance of cooperation. We were all subjected to such 
     propaganda activity during the war, and we would be the least 
     surprised if Hanoi was continuing to use similar tactics in 
     its dealings with the United States.
       Of particular concern to us are the several hundred POW/MIA 
     cases involving our fellow servicemen who were captured or 
     lost in enemy-controlled areas during the war, yet they still 
     have not been accounted for by Vietnam. We understand that 
     much of the fragmentary information provided by Vietnamese 
     officials to date indicates they could do more to resolve 
     these cases.

[[Page S8833]]

       Some of our fellow servicemen became missing during the 
     same incidents which we survived. They have not been 
     accounted for. Some were captured and never heard from again. 
     They have not been accounted for. Some were known to have 
     been held in captivity for several years and their ultimate 
     fate has still not been satisfactorily resolved. They have 
     not been accounted for. Still others were known to have died 
     in captivity, yet their remains have not been repatriated to 
     the United States. They have not been accounted for.
       Finally, we remain deeply concerned with reports from U.S. 
     and Russian intelligence sources that maintain several 
     hundred unidentified American POWs were held separately from 
     us during the war, in both Laos and Vietnam, and were not 
     released by Hanoi during Operation Homecoming in 1973. 
     Many of these reports have yet to be fully investigated.
       America deserves straightforward answers if Vietnam really 
     wants normalized diplomatic and economic relations. If 
     Vietnam truly has nothing to hide on the POW/MIA issue, then 
     why have they not released their wartime politburo and prison 
     records on American POWs and MIAs? Why have they not fully 
     disclosed other military records on POWs and MIAs?
       We would only be compounding a national tragedy if we 
     normalized relations with Hanoi before you, as Commander in 
     Chief, can tell us Hanoi is being fully forthcoming in 
     accounting for our missing comrades.
       Perhaps more than any other group of Americans, we want to 
     put the war behind us. But it must be done in an honorable 
     way. We, therefore, ask you to send a clear message to Hanoi 
     that America expects full cooperation and disclosure on 
     American POWs and MIAs before agreeing to establish 
     diplomatic and special trading privileges with Vietnam.
           Sincerely,
       John Peter Flynn, Lt Gen, USAF (ret).
       Robinson Risner, Brig Gen, USAF (ret).
       Sam Johnson, Member of Congress.
       Eugene ``Red'' McDaniel, CAPT, USN (ret).
       John A. Alpers, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       William J. Baugh, Col, USAF (ret).
       Adkins, C. Speed, MAJ, USA (ret).
       F.C. Baldock, CDR, USN (ret).
       Carroll Beeler, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Terry L. Boyer, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       Cole Black, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Paul G. Brown, LtCol, USMC (ret).
       David J. Carey, CAPT, USN (ret).
       John D. Burns, CAPT, USN (ret).
       James V. DiBernado, LtCol, USMC (ret).
       F.A.W. Franke, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Wayne Goodermote, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Jay R. Jensen, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       James M. Hickerson, CAPT, USN (ret).
       James F. Young, Col, USAF (ret).
       J. Charles Plumb, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Larry Friese, CDR, USN (ret).
       Julius Jayroe, Col, USAF (ret).
       Bruce Seeber, Col, USAF (ret).
       Konrad Trautman, Col, USAF (ret).
       Lawrence Barbay, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       Ron Bliss, Capt, USAF (ret).
       Arthur Burer, Col, USAF (ret).
       James O. Hivner, Col, USAF (ret).
       Gordon A. Larson, Col, USAF (ret).
       Robert Lewis, MSgt, USAF (ret).
       James L. Lamar, Col, USAF (ret).
       Armand J. Myers, Col, USAF (ret).
       Terry Uyeyama, Col, USAF (ret).
       Richard D. Vogel, Col, USAF (ret).
       Ted Guy, Col, USAF (ret).
       Paul E. Galanti, CDR, USN (ret).
       Laird Guttersen, Col, USAF (ret).
       Lawrence J. Stark, Civ.
       Michael D. Benge, Civ.
       Marion A. Marshall, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       Richard D. Mullen, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Philip E. Smith, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       William Stark, CAPT, USN (ret).
       David F. Allwine, MSgt, USAF (ret).
       Bob Barrett, Col, USAF (ret).
       Jack W. Bomar, Col, USAF (ret).
       Larry J. Chesley, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       C.D. Rico, CDR, USN (ret).
       Robert L. Stirm, Col, USAF (ret).
       Bernard Talley, Col, USAF (ret).
       Paul Montague, Civ.
       Leo Thorsness, Col, USAF (ret).
       Robert Lerseth, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Ray A. Vodhen, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Richard G. Tangeman, CAPT, USN (ret).
       John Pitchford, Col, USAF (ret).
       Steven Long, Col, USAF (ret).
       Brian Woods, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Dale Osborne, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Ralph Galati, Maj, USAF (ret).
       Ronald M. Lebert, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       Harry T. Jenkins, CAPT, USN (ret).
       John C. Ensch, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Render Crayton, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Henry James Bedinger, CDR, USN (ret).
       Brian D. Woods, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Read B. Mecleary, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Ted Stier, CDR, USN (ret).
       James L. Hutton, CAPT, USN (ret).
       John H. Wendell, Lt Col, USAF (ret).
       John W. Clark, Col, USAF (ret).
       Carl B. Crumpler, Col, USAF (ret).
       Verlyne W. Daniels, CAPT, USN (ret).
       Roger D. Ingvalson, Col, USAF (ret).
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1997.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and 
         Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gregg: The American Legion urges you and your 
     colleagues to retain in conference the Senate-passed language 
     on the POW/MIA Issue and U.S. relations with Vietnam (Sec. 
     406) in the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
     Appropriations bill for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 
     1997.
       As you know, Section 406 states no funds will be made 
     available for U.S. diplomacy with Vietnam, beyond what 
     existed prior to July 11, 1995, until President Clinton 
     certifies to Congress that Vietnam is ``fully cooperating'' 
     on the POW/MIA issue based on a ``formal assessment of all 
     information available to the U.S. Government.''
       This new certification will be critical in view of the 
     Senate's findings this past April, during the debate that 
     took place during Pete Peterson's confirmation hearing as 
     Ambassador to Vietnam. Most importantly, The President's 
     certification last year was ``seriously flawed'' and not the 
     result of a careful and thorough analysis of the facts.
       Section 406 is vital to letting communist Vietnam know that 
     their full cooperation, which includes unilateral 
     cooperation, in accounting for our missing and captured 
     personnel from the Vietnam War is still a precondition to 
     full normalization of relations.
       At The American Legion's 79th National Convention earlier 
     this month, our delegates unanimously reaffirmed our policy 
     that insists on the fullest cooperation before any further 
     favorable actions towards Vietnam be taken.
       Again, we urge you in the strongest possible terms, to 
     retain the Senate-passed language on the POW/MIA issue.
       Thank you for your continuing cooperation and support.
                                                Anthony G. Jordan,
                                               National Commander.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 7 minutes have expired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Senator McCain is chairing a committee; otherwise, he would be here. 
Senator Hagel also wanted to speak in favor of my amendment, but he had 
to go away for a moment. I don't know if he will return in time.
  Let me say to colleagues that for the families and for the legitimate 
concerns of all those groups that want to make sure that this process 
is working properly, they can look with pride to the fact that we are 
engaged in the most expensive, most thorough, most effective, most 
extraordinary and comprehensive effort to provide for the accounting of 
the missing in the history of human warfare.
  No country has ever before, in all of human history, gone to the 
lengths that we have gone to, to try to account for our missing and our 
lost in the course of a war. That is what we are doing today. There is, 
in the current law, a requirement that the President certify that, 
based upon all information available to the U.S. Government, that 
Vietnam is fully cooperating in good faith with the United States in 
resolving discrepancy cases, live sightings, field activities, 
recovering and repatriating American remains, accelerating efforts to 
help provide documents that would lead to the fullest possible 
accounting of prisoners of war and the missing in action, providing 
further assistance in implementing trilateral investigations with Laos, 
and recovering all archival eyewitness accounts, and so forth.
  That is the current law. What the Senator from New Hampshire seeks to 
do is place a whole lot of new hoops in, some of which can't be met 
because the intelligence community itself is divided over it. Then they 
have a whole new way of arguing, saying that, gee, we are not doing the 
job. There is even a requirement in his section 405 about a specific 
document that has to be resolved, the main intelligence directorate and 
ministry of defense of the Soviet Union document of 1971. This has been 
analyzed extensively by our intelligence community. Let me just say 
that document has been found to be in error, inaccurate. And to have us 
now argue about it is a waste of the time, I think, of the standard.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, with all due respect of 
my colleague, on that last point, this is a document entitled the 
Comprehensive Report of the U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POWs/MIAs, 
of which Senator John Kerry is a member, and I am, as well as others. 
In that document, which Senator Kerry signed, is this phrase:

       There is debate within the U.S. side of the commission as 
     to whether the numbers cited in these reports are plausible. 
     The U.S. Government has concluded that there probably is more 
     information in Vietnamese party and military archives that 
     could shed light on these documents. But, to date, such 
     information has not been provided by the Vietnamese 
     government.


[[Page S8834]]


  That is an absolute statement signed by Senator Kerry, which goes 
exactly in the opposite direction of what the Senator is trying to do 
by striking the language. It says simply that the Vietnamese have not 
provided all of the information. This commission says so and it was 
signed by the Senator himself. So I do not understand how the Senator 
can sign one document and come to the floor and try to strike all the 
language that supports the document that he signed. I think the whole 
matter is just subject to great criticism in that regard alone.
  In addition, I have a letter from Sandy Berger, the President's 
National Security Adviser, that says, ``Vietnam's full faith efforts in 
cooperating on this issue are essential to the development of the 
relationship.''
  We have that in our language. In addition, there is another letter 
from Mr. Berger, dated April 10, 1997. The previous one was August 15, 
1997. The same point: We will continue efforts already underway to 
require additional information on these documents, the 735 document, 
including access to this document, and on and on and on--all of these 
relating directly to the language.
  In addition, the Senator from Arizona, who I understand is supporting 
the Senator from Massachusetts, said on the floor of the Senate on 
April 10, Madam President:

       I thank [the Senator from New Hampshire] because if it had 
     not been for him, this very important letter from the White 
     House would not have come to our leader signed by Sandy 
     Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs. It lays out a very important set of priorities for 
     further actions that need to be taken by the United States 
     and by the Vietnamese so that we can finally put this 
     difficult chapter behind us.

  That is exactly what we are doing in this language, laying out this 
series of priorities. It is updating it and laying out the priorities. 
I urge my colleagues to simply look at 405 and respect the wishes of 
the families and veterans groups and others, and please keep the 
language in there for the sake of those people who have suffered so 
much throughout this process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield myself the balance of time. My 
colleagues know there is nobody in the U.S. Senate more committed to 
finding out what happened than our colleague, Senator John McCain, who 
spent 6 years-plus of his life in a prison in Vietnam. Senator McCain 
understands very clearly, as others of us do, that a few years ago, 
there were 196 individuals on the list of last known alive in Vietnam. 
In the last few years, because of our efforts, we have determined the 
fate for all but 43 of those 196. The Defense Department is opposed to 
the language the Senator from New Hampshire has put in the bill because 
they say it will set back our effort to get the answers on the other 
43. The administration is opposed to it. I believe that, in good 
conscience, the Senate should be opposed to that language because it 
will set back our efforts and set back our progress.
  Mr. GREGG. Has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to table the Kerry amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I move to table the Kerry amendment and 
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 vote will occur in sequence at a later 
time.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Amendments Nos. 3277, 3278, and 3279, En Bloc

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

       The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), for himself and 
     Mr. Hollings, proposes amendments numbered 3277, 3278, and 
     3279 en bloc.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam 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. 3277

                     TITLE V--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

       On page 105, at the end of line 22, insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That any two stations of that are primary 
     affiliates of the same broadcast network within any given 
     designated market area authorized to deliver a digital signal 
     by November 1, 1998 must be guaranteed access on the same 
     terms and conditions by any multichannel video provider 
     (including off-air, cable and satellite distribution).''


                           amendment no. 3278

       At the end of title IV, insert the following new sections:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act of any other Act for fiscal year 1999 
     or any fiscal year thereafter may be expended for the 
     operation of a United States consulate or diplomatic facility 
     in Jerusalem unless such consulate or diplomatic facility is 
     under the supervision of the United States Ambassador to 
     Israel.
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act of any other Act for fiscal year 1999 
     or any fiscal year thereafter may be expended for the 
     publication of any official government document which lists 
     countries and their capital cities unless the publication 
     identifies Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
       Sec.   . For the purposes of the registration of birth, 
     certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a 
     United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the 
     Secretary of State shall, upon request of the citizen, record 
     the place of birth as Israel.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3279

       At the end of the bill insert the following new title:

                                TITLE --

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Whale 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the populations of whales that occur in waters of the 
     United States are resources of substantial ecological, 
     scientific, socioeconomic, and esthetic value;
       (2) whale populations--
       (A) form a significant component of marine ecosystems;
       (B) are the subject of intense research;
       (C) provide for a multimillion dollar whale watching 
     tourist industry that provides the public an opportunity to 
     enjoy and learn about great whales and the ecosystems of 
     which the whales are a part; and
       (D) are of importance to Native Americans for cultural and 
     subsistence purposes;
       (3) whale populations are in various stages of recovery, 
     and some whale populations, such as the northern right whale 
     (Eubaleana glacialis) remain perilously close to extinction;
       (4) the interactions that occur between ship traffic, 
     commercial fishing, whale watching vessels, and other 
     recreational vessels and whale populations may affect whale 
     populations adversely;
       (5) the exploration and development of oil, gas, and hard 
     mineral resources, marine debris, chemical pollutants, noise, 
     and other anthropogenic sources of change in the habitat of 
     whales may affect whale populations adversely;
       (6) the conservation of whale populations is subject to 
     difficult challenges related to--
       (A) the migration of whale populations across international 
     boundaries;
       (B) the size of individual whales, as that size precludes 
     certain conservation research procedures that may be used for 
     other animal species, such as captive research and breeding;
       (C) the low reproductive rates of whales that require long-
     term conservation programs to ensure recovery of whale 
     populations; and
       (D) the occurrence of whale populations in offshore waters 
     where undertaking research, monitoring, and conservation 
     measures is difficult and costly;
       (7)(A) the Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator 
     of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has 
     research and regulatory responsibility for the conservation 
     of whales under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1361 et seq.); and
       (B) the heads of other Federal agencies and the Marine 
     Mammal Commission established

[[Page S8835]]

     under section 201 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 
     (16 U.S.C. 1401) have related research and management 
     activities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 or 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
       (8) the funding available for the activities described in 
     paragraph (8) is insufficient to support all necessary whale 
     conservation and recovery activities; and
       (9) there is a need to facilitate the use of funds from 
     non-Federal sources to carry out the conservation of whales.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL WHALE CONSERVATION FUND.

       Section 4 of the National Fish and Wildlife Establishment 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3703) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f)(1) In carrying out the purposes under section 2(b), 
     the Foundation may establish a national whale conservation 
     endowment fund, to be used by the Foundation to support 
     research, management activities, or educational programs that 
     contribute to the protection, conservation, or recovery of 
     whale populations in waters of the United States.
       ``(2)(A) In a manner consistent with subsection (c)(1), the 
     Foundation may--
       ``(i) accept, receive, solicit, hold, administer, and use 
     any gift, devise, or bequest made to the Foundation for the 
     express purpose of supporting whale conservation; and
       ``(ii) deposit in the endowment fund under paragraph (1) 
     any funds made available to the Foundation under this 
     subparagraph, including any income or interest earned from a 
     gift, devise, or bequest received by the Foundation under 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(B) To raise funds to be deposited in the endowment fund 
     under paragraph (1), the Foundation may enter into 
     appropriate arrangements to provide for the design, 
     copyright, production, marketing, or licensing, of logos, 
     seals, decals, stamps, or any other item that the Foundation 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(C)(i) The Secretary of Commerce may transfer to the 
     Foundation for deposit in the endowment fund under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(I) any amount (or portion thereof) received by the 
     Secretary under section 105(a)(1) of the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1375(a)(1)) as a civil 
     penalty assessed by the Secretary under that section; or
       ``(II) any amount (or portion thereof) received by the 
     Secretary as a settlement or award for damages in a civil 
     action or other legal proceeding relating to damage of 
     natural resources.
       ``(ii) The Directors of the Board shall ensure that any 
     amounts transferred to the Foundation under clause (i) for 
     the endowment fund under paragraph (1) are deposited in that 
     fund in accordance with this subparagraph.
       ``(3) It is the intent of Congress that in making 
     expenditures from the endowment fund under paragraph (1) to 
     carry out activities specified in that paragraph, the 
     Foundation should give priority to funding projects that 
     address the conservation of populations of whales that the 
     Foundation determines--
       ``(A) are the most endangered (including the northern right 
     whale (Eubaleana glacialis)); or
       ``(B) most warrant, and are most likely to benefit from, 
     research managment, or educational activities that may be 
     funded with amounts made available from the fund.
       ``(g) In carrying out any action on the part of the 
     Foundation under subsection (f), the Directors of the Board 
     shall consult with the Administrator of the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration and the Marine Mammal 
     Commission.''.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  If there is no further debate, without objection, the amendments are 
agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3277, 3278, and 3279), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, to bring our colleagues up to speed, we 
now are down to four amendments which are still to be debated and on 
which votes may be ordered. We presently have votes ordered on at least 
three amendments. We are waiting for our colleagues who have these 
amendments in order to come to the floor and make their presentations. 
It looks as if we will begin voting probably in an hour or so, I hope. 
There will be a sequence of votes that will be at least three long, 
potentially six.
  Madam President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3280

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the impact of 
 Japan's recession on the economies of East and Southeast Asia and the 
                             United States)

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

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     Mr. Thomas, Mr. Graham, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Mack, 
     Mr. Durbin, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Reid, Mr. Breaux and 
     Mr. Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 3280.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title VI, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 6____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING JAPAN'S RECESSION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and Japan share common goals of 
     peace, stability, democracy, and economic prosperity in East 
     and Southeast Asia and around the world.
       (2) Japan's economic and financial crisis represents a new 
     challenge to United States-Japanese cooperation to achieve 
     these common goals and threatens the economic stability of 
     East and Southeast Asia and the United States.
       (3) A strong United States-Japanese alliance is critical to 
     stability in East and Southeast Asia.
       (4) The importance of the United States-Japanese alliance 
     was reaffirmed by the President of the United States and the 
     Prime Minister of Japan in the April 1996 Joint Security 
     Declaration.
       (5) United States-Japanese bilateral military cooperation 
     was enhanced with the revision of the United States 
     Guidelines for Defense Cooperation in 1997.
       (6) The Japanese economy, the second largest in the world 
     and over 2 times larger than the economy in the rest of East 
     Asia, has been growing at a little over 1 percent annually 
     since 1991 and is currently in a recession with some 
     forecasts suggesting that it will contract by 1.5 percent in 
     1998.
       (7) The estimated $574,000,000,000 of problem loans in 
     Japan's banking sector and other problems associated with an 
     unstable banking sector remain the major roadblock to 
     economic recovery in Japan.
       (8) The recent weakness in the yen, following a 10 percent 
     depreciation of the yen against the dollar over the last 5 
     months and a 45 percent depreciation since 1995, has placed 
     competitive price pressures on United States industries and 
     workers and is putting downward pressure on China and the 
     rest of the economies in East and Southeast Asia to begin 
     another round of competitive currency devaluations.
       (9) Japan's current account surplus has increased by 60 
     percent over the last 12 months from 71,579,000,000 yen in 
     1996 to 114,357,000,000 yen in 1997.
       (10) A period of deflation in Japan would lead to lower 
     demand for United States products.
       (11) The unnecessary and burdensome regulation of the 
     Japanese market constrains Japanese economic growth and 
     raises costs to business and consumers.
       (12) Deregulating Japan's economy and spurring economic 
     growth would ultimately benefit the Japanese people with a 
     higher standard of living and a more secure future.
       (13) Japan's economic recession is slowing the growth of 
     the United States gross domestic product and job creation in 
     the United States.
       (14) Japan has made significant efforts to restore economic 
     growth with a 16,000,000,000,000 yen stimulus package that 
     includes 4,500,000,000,000 yen in tax cuts and 
     11,500,000,000,000 yen in government spending, a Total Plan 
     to restore stability to the private banking sector, and joint 
     intervention with the United States to strengthen the value 
     of the yen in international currency markets.
       (15) The people of Japan expressed deep concern about 
     economic conditions and government leadership in the Upper 
     House elections held on July 12, 1998.
       (16) The Prime Minister of Japan tendered his resignation 
     on July 13, 1998, to take responsibility for the Liberal 
     Democratic Party's poor election results and to acknowledge 
     the desire of the people of Japan for new leadership to 
     restore economic stability.
       (17) Japan's economic recession is having an adverse effect 
     on the economy of the United States and is now seriously 
     threatening the 9 years of unprecedented economic expansion 
     in the United States.
       (18) Japan's economic recession is having an adverse effect 
     on the recovery of the East and Southeast Asian economies.
       (19) The American people and the countries of East and 
     Southeast Asia are looking for a demonstration of Japanese 
     leadership and

[[Page S8836]]

     close United States-Japanese cooperation in resolving Japan's 
     economic crisis.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the 
     United States Trade Representative should emphasize the 
     importance of financial deregulation, including banking 
     reform, market deregulation, and restructuring bad bank debt 
     as fundamental to Japan's economic recovery; and
       (2) the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Secretary of State should communicate to 
     the Japanese Government that the first priority of the new 
     Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet should be to restore 
     economic growth in Japan and promote stability in 
     international financial markets.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this bipartisan 
amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing our concern 
about the impact of Japan's recession on the economies of East Asia, 
Southeast Asia and the United States, and particularly appealing to the 
members--our colleagues and friends--of the Liberal Democratic Party in 
Japan, which is meeting tomorrow to choose their new president, who 
will in turn become the next Prime Minister of Japan--to be mindful of 
the very profound and friendly concern that we have in the U.S. Senate 
about the condition of the Japanese economy, about its impact on the 
people of Japan, of Asia, and indeed, of the United States.
  I am privileged to offer this bipartisan amendment on behalf of 
Senators Thomas, Graham, Lugar, Bingaman, Brownback, Durbin, Kohl, 
Reid, Mack, Breaux and Inhofe.
  For almost a half century, the United States has worked with Japan 
for the common goals of peace, stability, democracy and prosperity in 
East Asia and the world. However, in the face of the deepening Asian 
economic crisis, this alliance currently faces what may be its toughest 
challenge yet.
  So far, the United States has survived the Asian crisis relatively 
unscathed, thanks to our long-lived boom economy. But I fear that good 
fortune may now be ending. By some estimates, worldwide GDP growth will 
drop from 3.7 percent this year to 2.4 percent next year. Analysts have 
attributed plummeting commodity prices to the Asian crisis in this 
country and throughout the world. A major dropoff in demand for U.S. 
products in Asia has pushed the trade deficit well beyond expectations 
to a record $15.75 billion--15 and three-quarters billion--this May. 
Industrial production in OECD countries like the United States has 
fallen from 5 percent to 2 percent and is expected to fall further 
again to 1 percent.
  The slide of Asian currencies against the dollar has put serious 
competitive pressures on our exports and another round of competitive 
devaluations would have devastating consequences on our industries and 
our workers.
  Unquestionably, Mr. President, if the Asian recession continues, its 
impact on our economy will worsen and millions of Americans will feel 
what is happening in Japan and Asia.
  This bipartisan resolution emphasizes that the strong recovery of the 
Japanese economy, which remains by far the largest in Asia, comprising 
fully two-thirds of the Asian economy, will make or break the region. 
With every subsequent analysis, the economic picture in Japan darkens.
  Japan's financial system has fundamental flaws which have only 
recently been brought to light, but which most everyone now 
acknowledges, and the wide scope of their ramifications continues to 
unsettle and surprise economists. Bad bank loans in Japan account for 
$574 billion in debt in banks in Japan which claimed to be solvent only 
recently, a problem which is perpetuated by a weak auditing system. 
Formal and informal barriers severely restrict free competition, often 
holding foreign market share in certain sectors down below 5 percent. 
The yen continues to fall, down 45 percent against the dollar since 
1995. Further devaluation of the yen could lead to a devaluation of the 
Chinese yuan, an event which would have significant ramifications, and 
bad ones, for the entire global economy, particularly for us in the 
United States.
  All of these factors have led to substantial and understandable 
dissatisfaction among the Japanese people which they expressed earlier 
this month, with surprising clarity to many people, in a historic 
election for the Upper House of Parliament. The ruling Liberal 
Democratic Party lost 17 of its 61 seats and the primary opposition 
party, the Democratic Party of Japan, picked up nine members to reach a 
total of 47 seats in the Upper House. These election results should be 
taken very seriously in the United States. The situation is bad in 
Japan, the people of Japan know it, and without change, it will get 
worse.
  It is today axiomatic that we live and work in a global economy. When 
an economic crisis of this magnitude hits a country as large and 
significant as Japan, the entire world feels the impact; particularly 
we feel it. Japan is, after all, our second largest trading partner. 
Japan imported almost $66 billion of American goods last year. That is 
more than four times the import of American goods into China, in spite 
of its much larger population. With 40 percent of American total 
agricultural product going abroad, the Asian economic crisis is, of 
course, having a very negative impact on American farmers.
  It is no surprise that we are suffering along with East Asia. Without 
a rally by the Asian economies, American growth will fall off. By all 
accounts, a stable Japan is the first significant step to a broader 
Asian recovery.
  Mr. President, I do want to indicate to my colleagues and the 
managers of the bill, I am prepared to yield the floor at any point if 
anyone wishes to proceed. If the managers have other business they want 
to do at this time, I am prepared to put the rest of my statement in 
the Record. If not, I will be equally prepared to proceed. I thank the 
managers, noting the nod from the Democratic floor manager.
  Japan has taken steps to address its economic troubles. Economic 
stimulus packages and structural reform committees have been set in 
place. However, both the vast extent of the reforms necessary and the 
current political turnover including the resignation of Prime Minister 
Hashimoto after the election returns, which I have just described, make 
it imperative that we in the United States place our full support 
behind the forces of change, bold change, in Japan, lest they lose 
momentum.
  Swift reform hopefully will be a priority in relations between our 
two nations. We know, of course, the President has been in touch with 
the leadership of Japan. Secretary Rubin has done the same.
  And it seems only proper, and in some sense is necessary, that the 
Congress of the United States make clear its broad-based concern for 
the current economic condition of Japan--and here on the eve of the 
Liberal Democratic Party elections tomorrow, it is our deep hope, our 
plea, that change be implemented.
  So today, along with the distinguished group of Members of both 
parties, whose names I mentioned earlier, I am pleased to offer this 
resolution to express to our President and to the Government of Japan 
that the Senate of the United States is following Japan's economic 
performance with increasing anxiety and is very concerned about the 
pressure that Japan's current economic crisis is putting on our overall 
bilateral relationship.
  While we applaud efforts in Japan in assessing the damage and 
beginning the reform, we need to maintain a strong position supporting 
the implementation of those reforms, even though we know they will be 
painful. The resolution that we submit today cites a number of 
fundamental reforms crucial to recovery in Japan and Asia, including 
deregulation of the Japanese economy, liberating the creative, 
innovative forces that are there, improvement of market access for 
foreign entities wishing to do business in Japan, enforcement of fair 
trade, and particularly bold and substantial banking reform.
  These are all actions which will increase the competitiveness of the 
Japanese market and of Japanese companies, providing greater 
opportunities for foreign investment in Japan and for the success of 
individual Japanese and foreign entrepreneurs.
  Mr. President, a more open and healthy Japanese economy is 
fundamental to the recovery of the entire Asian region.
  Seeing no one else on the floor, Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent for 1 more minute to complete this statement.

[[Page S8837]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Long into the foreseeable future, Japan will remain one of our most 
important economic trading partners and strategic allies in the world, 
sharing our common goals of regional and worldwide prosperity and 
peace. The importance of our alliance, though, compels us to speak out 
and place our support behind the most innovative reform efforts in 
Japan and push for a swift resolution of the economic crisis there.
  Earlier this week, the House passed a similar resolution with the 
overwhelming support of 391 Members--only 2 opposed. Given the urgency 
of the issue and the value of a unified congressional position, I urge 
my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Connecticut has 
expired.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. We yield back all time.
  Does the Senator wish a vote?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is now 
set aside.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that 
we now proceed with the four previously ordered votes, two minutes to 
debate prior to each vote, and that the three succeeding votes be 
limited to 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 3272

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order of business is the Nickles amendment 
numbered 3272. There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on 
the Nickles amendment be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Nickles amendment No. 3272.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 230 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Cleland
     Coats
     Collins
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
  The amendment (No. 3272) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the next vote on the Bingaman 
amendment, No. 3273, be passed over and put at the end of the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3276

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe the next vote will be on my 
motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now the Kerry 
amendment, numbered 3276. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Who goes first, proponents or opponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has been given 30 
seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. All right. Mr. President, this would prevent the opening 
of a consulate in South Vietnam. At least once a year, sometimes more 
often, we have to vote on whether we want to make progress on relations 
with Vietnam or whether we want to go back to a situation which existed 
for many years after the war. This would prevent the opening of a 
consulate in South Vietnam. It would basically prohibit us from being 
able to make progress on the resolution of the POW/MIA issue, which 
every objective observer in the Pentagon says has been going along 
well, and it would, frankly, inhibit our ability to reach a full 
accounting.
  I recommend we vote for the Kerry amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERRY. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  We have the most extensive effort to account for our service people 
in the history of human warfare, and that effort would be significantly 
set back by the language the Senator from New Hampshire has put in 
place because the cooperation of the Vietnamese would be affected by 
the judgments he asks the President to make.
  We keep in place the current law. The current law has worked 
effectively. Of 196 people we last knew to be alive in Vietnam, we have 
received information that has told the families of what happened to all 
but 43 of them. We want the answers for those other 43. The way to do 
that is by continuing with the current law, not the new language of the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 1 minute.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, there is nothing 
inappropriate at all about continuing the updating of the certification 
process. The President of the United States still must certify. This 
does not change that. This does not, as the Senator from Arizona said, 
close down the consulate at all. It simply says the process, ongoing, 
is to continue to have the Vietnamese participate fully and cooperate 
fully with accounting for MIAs. That is all it is.
  We have had correspondence from Mr. Berger on this matter. We have 
had comments from Senator Kerry himself, and Senator McCain, on the 
floor, indicating this is a process that should work--forward. So there 
is absolutely no reason to oppose it.
  I point out, 70 former POWs have supported what I am doing in a 
letter, as does the American Legion, as does the League of Families, 
the Alliance of Families, and VVA, and many others.
  I think the evidence is there to say this does not interrupt 
certification and the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts 
should be tabled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to lay on the table amendment No. 3276. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered.
  The Senators are advised this will be a 10-minute vote.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced, yeas 34, nays 66, as follows:

[[Page S8838]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--66

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3276) was rejected.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. COVERDELL. On rollcall vote 231, I voted no. It was my intention 
to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on 
the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the underlying 
amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3276) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, motion to lay on the table 
is agreed to.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3280

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now the Lieberman 
amendment No. 3280. Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, little more than 24 hours from now, the 
members of the Liberal Democratic Party will be meeting in Japan to 
choose their new head, who will in turn become the next Prime Minister 
of Japan. In that sense, this resolution, which I have been privileged 
to introduce with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, the principal 
cosponsor being Senator Thomas of Wyoming, the chairman of the Asian 
Subcommittee of Foreign Relations, this resolution could not come at a 
better time. It recognizes the importance of our bilateral relationship 
with Japan, perhaps the most important bilateral relationship we have. 
It notes the economic crisis in Japan and the way in which it is 
beginning to affect our economy. Commodity prices are dropping; our 
import-export balance is being affected; our trade deficit is going up.
  It appeals to the leadership of our great ally, Japan, as the Liberal 
Democratic Party meets tomorrow, to not just choose a new leader but to 
choose a new bold course which will directly address the economic 
crisis in that country which is now affecting us. I urge a strong 
bipartisan vote on this as a message to our friends in Japan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I don't doubt the sincerity of our dear 
colleague, who is one of our more respected Members, in offering a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Japanese ought to promote 
economic growth. However, I have to say, having been here to almost 
midnight last night, it makes little sense to me that we are going to 
have a 100-0--if everybody is here--rollcall vote on this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution when nobody is opposed to Japan having economic 
growth.
  I don't know how we are going to pass the appropriations and adjourn 
and keep the Government running if we are going to continue to do this. 
It is not just Democrats, it is Republicans as well.
  We are for the amendment, but why we have to have a rollcall vote on 
it, I don't understand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment numbered 3280. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Kerrey
     Wellstone
       
  The amendment (No. 3280) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. 3273

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the vote 
on No. 3273, the Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3273, as modified

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 3273), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       No funds may be used under this Act to process or register 
     any application filed or submitted with the Patent and 
     Trademark Office under the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
     for the registration and protection of trademarks used in 
     commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain 
     international conventions, and for other purposes,'' approved 
     July 5, 1946, commonly referred to as the Trademark Act of 
     1946, as amended, after the date of enactment of this Act for 
     a mark identical to the official tribal insignia of any 
     federally recognized Indian tribe for a period of one year 
     from the date of enactment of this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3273), as modified, 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.


                           Amendment No. 3281

  (Purpose: To eliminate the potential for fraud in the investor visa 
                                program)

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

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 3281.


[[Page S8839]]


  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 add the following:

     SEC.   .

       (a) Add the following at the end of 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(C):
       (iv) Definition:
       (A) As used in this subsection the term ``capital'' means 
     cash, equipment, inventory, other tangible property, and cash 
     equivalents, but shall not include indebtedness. Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to exclude documents, such 
     as binding contracts, as evidence that a petitioner is in the 
     process of investing capital as long as the capital is not in 
     the form of indebtedness with a payback period that exceeds 
     21 months;
       (B) Assets acquired, directly or indirectly, by unlawful 
     means (such as criminal activities) shall not be considered 
     capital for the purposes of this subsection. A petitioner's 
     sworn declaration concerning lawful sources of capital shall 
     constitute presumptive proof of lawful sources for the 
     purposes of this subsection, although nothing herein shall 
     preclude further inquiry, prior to approval of conditional 
     lawful permanent resident status.
       (b) This section shall not apply to any application filed 
     prior to July 23, 1998.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3281) 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.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
now turn to the Smith amendment. Under the terms of the agreement, 
there will be 40 minutes of debate on this amendment. I expect we will 
begin voting on final passage and on the Smith amendment no earlier 
than 3 o'clock and no later than 3:15.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Is the Chair prepared to receive an amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are prepared. Under the previous order, 
there will be 20 minutes equally divided and then 20 minutes on the 
second-degree amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Oregon yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. As I understand, there has been an agreement reached 
between the parties here that there will be 40 minutes of debate 
equally divided between the Senator from Oregon, who will control half 
of that time, and the Senator from Massachusetts, who will control half 
of that time. Is that correct?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that be the procedure under which 
we function.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3258

(Purpose: To establish a system of registries of temporary agricultural 
workers to provide for a sufficient supply of such workers and to amend 
 the Immigration and Nationality Act to streamline procedures for the 
 admission and extension of stay of nonimmigrant agricultural workers, 
                        and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], for himself, Mr. 
     Wyden, Mr. Craig, Mr. Graham, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
     Hatch, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Mack, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Santorum, 
     Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3258.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators 
Wyden, Craig, Graham of Florida, Bumpers, Gorton, Hatch, McConnell, 
Mack, Kempthorne, Santorum, Faircloth, and Thurmond to offer the 
Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act of 1999, also 
known as AgJOBS. Our bill will create a streamlined guest worker 
program to allow a reliable supply of legal, temporary, agricultural 
workers.

  Why is this necessary? Currently, in this country, we have a process 
for guest workers that is terribly broken. The H-2A program, if I could 
show you graphically, has a 6-page application for each worker, with 
325 pages of instructions as to how to fill it out. As a consequence, 
all of the foreign workers who are in this country are here either 
illegally or having been grandfathered in through earlier amnesties.
  It is estimated by the GAO that 40 percent of those who are here are 
illegal. As a consequence of that, the GAO has said there is not a farm 
labor supply problem because we have all these illegal aliens here. I 
am simply saying, and I am doing it on a bipartisan basis, we owe this 
country something better than a system that relies upon illegal 
immigration. We ought to give these foreign workers the dignity of 
being here under law, with some basic human standards and some benefits 
to which they ought to be entitled when they are here. It is for that 
reason that Senator Wyden and I have approached the farm community and 
asked them to give as much as they can, to help economically to fix 
this program. I believe they have responded. It is for that reason 
there are so many Republicans and Democrats on this bill.
  I know there are still some misgivings. I know my friend from 
Massachusetts has misgivings; the Senators from California do. But what 
we want to do is get this bill to a conference committee with some 
place markers so we can provide a forum where this can be further 
refined. Let me tell you the kinds of features Senator Wyden and I 
share in a common desire to ultimately change American law in a very 
fundamental way in order to avoid a very large crisis for consumers, 
for farm employers, and for farm workers.
  We are proposing in this bill the establishment of a national 
registry which will replace the current system that so few are able to 
use, even if they could afford to use it. This is going to be a 
registry for domestic workers only, in a way that will allow farmers to 
know where they can go for workers and where they can have legal 
status. In exchange for this, there will be added to the current 
system--we are going to preserve all the basic rights that are 
guaranteed; all the labor guarantees that are there will remain there. 
We are going to have a prevailing wage rate, something that reflects a 
level that the agricultural community can afford, and also one that 
gives probably in excess of 1.5 million farm workers a pay raise. We 
are not talking about the minimum wage, we are talking about a 
prevailing wage plus 5 percent.
  In addition to that, we are talking about a transportation allowance 
and a housing allowance. These are things that we owe those who come 
here to this country to do agricultural work. These are things which my 
friends on the left have been asking for, for a long, long time. I am 
here to say the time is now to say yes. We are saying yes to that. We 
are doing it on a basis, though, that recognizes the economics of the 
farmer also, because the truth is, most of the agricultural employers 
in this country are not big corporate farms, they are mom and pop who 
are trying to make a bottom line. They do not even control, in most 
cases, the price that they get for their commodities.
  We believe--Senator Wyden and I and Senator Graham of Florida, who 
has been so helpful on this, and others on the Democrat side--that we 
have found the middle ground here that wins for consumers but, more 
important, wins for agricultural workers and also for farmers.
  With that, I yield time to my colleague from Oregon, whose help I 
appreciate very much, Senator Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I hope this amendment is just the beginning 
of the debate on agricultural labor. But I believe that the legislation 
before the Senate is based on three principles that can last well into 
the 21st century and be in the interests of both farm workers and farm 
employers.

[[Page S8840]]

  The first principle on which this amendment is based is that the U.S. 
worker must come first--that U.S. workers, for example, when they 
participate in the registry, will have the right of first refusal to 
any available farm job in our country, and that the Federal Government 
is required to notify those workers about available positions.

  Second, this amendment brings before the Senate specific changes 
proposed over the years by the Farm Worker Justice Fund to improve 
working conditions for the farm workers in our country.
  Third, it will replace the current dysfunctional system for 
administering this program with one that is modern and is based on the 
use of computer technology.
  At every step along the way, this package tries to address specific 
concerns raised by worker advocates, as well as those advocating for 
the growers. My colleague, Senator Smith, talked about the registry. If 
a U.S. worker participates in the registry, that worker is entitled to 
benefits that U.S. workers are not entitled to today, such as housing 
and transportation. And the registry also seeks to address the concerns 
of growers, specifically, by saying that when a grower utilizes this 
registry, the grower can then be certain that there is a presumption 
that their workers are legal.
  The last point I would like to raise, because I know many of my 
colleagues want to speak and have important questions, deals with 
exactly the number of people involved in farm labor in our country. 
This is the centerpiece of the question. We have heard a lot of talk on 
the floor of the Senate about a guest worker program. There are very 
few legal guest workers. There are 1.6 million farm workers in our 
country and perhaps 25,000 guest workers who are here legally under the 
current program. The 1.6 million farm workers, who work on those farms, 
have virtually no legal entitlements other than to the minimum wage. So 
what this legislation does is it potentially extends basic worker 
protections to a far greater share of that 1.6 million pool of workers, 
save 25,000. It will create a circumstance in which hundreds of 
thousands more farm workers get access to housing and transportation 
and other benefits that they do not have today.
  I know this is a new concept, but it is an important one because what 
this amendment seeks to do is to change the nature of the system so we 
can make sure the bulk of our workers are legal in America. The General 
Accounting Office made the judgment that there was no shortage of 
workers in America, but they concluded that way because they counted 
illegal workers. Right now, any grower can tell you that their workers 
may appear to be legal, but that the Social Security Administration 
often rejects more than half of the Social Security numbers filed. So 
what we have is a situation with growers caught between being penalized 
because they cannot find legal workers or being felons because their 
workers are not legal.
  I believe workers deserve better and growers deserve better. That is 
what this amendment does. I appreciate Senator Smith giving me this 
time from the allotment that he has.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues from Oregon, both 
of my colleagues from Oregon, and certainly the Senator from Florida, 
who have worked with us to craft the legislation that is now before 
you.
  For several years, I have tried to deal with the H-2A problem, only 
to be unsuccessful. I must tell you, Mr. President, I have watched the 
problem grow across America in a most inhumane way because the 
workforce is needed and the workers come. They come across our borders 
illegally, they are subjected to inhumane environments, in many 
instances, and, as a result, a great problem has grown, not only for a 
workforce seeking work, but also for the individual or individuals who 
provide the work, American agriculture. We have here a rare 
opportunity. It is an opportunity to fix a problem before it truly 
becomes a crisis on both sides. And in fixing that problem, my 
colleagues from Oregon and Florida, and myself involved, have attempted 
to approach it in a very commonsense way. That is to avoid the 
conflicts for millions of Americans, and recognizes, as Senator Wyden 
just said, that the American worker should come first, but in a state 
of near full employment where the unemployable, or those who choose not 
to work, are the only ones remaining. Clearly, we are at a point of 
crisis, and we must offer that opportunity to farm labor, to those who 
are willing to, and under a condition now that I think is much more 
presentable.

  Growers want and need a stable and predictable workforce, a legal 
workforce. They don't like playing around the edges of illegality. Let 
us make this workforce legal under the conditions that have been 
spelled out in this legislation. I think that provides a good, fair, 
market-based compensation. Prevailing wage is the wage issue here, and 
that is as it should be.
  Unemployed workers, and those hoping to move from welfare to work, 
want and need to be matched up with decent jobs. That is what our 
society ought to be directed toward. American citizens should have 
first claim, as I said, to American jobs, but all workers would rather 
be working legally and hope for protection of basic labor standards.
  These goals are not always met. In fact, current Federal law and its 
bureaucratic implementation are hurting growers and workers which have 
created a system that has created a monstrous bureaucracy. The Senator 
from Oregon talks of the multitude of pages necessary and in an attempt 
to determine who is and who isn't legal, of course, the employer 
oftentimes being held liable.
  This is why I am pleased I can join with my colleagues in proposing 
what I think is phenomenally constructive reform in the H-2A 
Agricultural Guest Worker Program. Failure to fix or replace this 
program means the Federal Government is completely ignoring the needs 
of a significantly changed agricultural labor market.
  Many employers who meet legal standards of diligence when they hire a 
worker really have no idea if the next raid by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service will scare off their workforce and their crops 
will rot in the field. That is not an exaggeration. Just a few weeks 
ago that happened in the State of Georgia, just to our south: One 
county, a raid; the rest of the county was cleared out of a workforce 
which left crops rotting in the fields. It is an issue in Georgia, in 
Florida, in Idaho, in Oregon, in New York, in Kentucky--all over the 
country where this particular type of work force is necessary.
  California growers and local officials have made a real effort to 
address this shortfall with welfare-to-work efforts--which does not 
appear to be helping.
  The GAO study that has helped prompt the kind of urgency that the 
Senators from Oregon spoke to estimated that as many as 600,000 farm 
workers, or 37 percent of the 1.6 million, are not legally authorized 
to work in the United States--600,000. That is a problem, a very big 
problem, a problem created by laws and by a Department of Labor, and I 
am pleased that they have worked with us to resolve this issue.
  As workers disappear from U.S. fields--and crops stay there, instead 
of moving to stores and consumers--U.S. food will be replaced by 
foreign imported food.
  This means a mainstay in our economy--the U.S. agriculture industry--
is threatened with a major breakdown. And our families are threatened 
with an increased risk to their health and safety because of food-borne 
diseases.
  Also, the current H-2A program has been a red-tape nightmare. Even 
when growers meet all deadlines, GAO found that DOL misses its 
statutory deadlines 40 percent of the time.
  The current H-2A program has been completely ineffective as a means 
of obtaining temporary and seasonal workers--supplying only about 
24,000 out of 1.6 million farm workers.
  In the 1996 Immigration Law, and in appropriations over recent years, 
Congress has made it a priority to secure our borders and crack down on 
illegal immigration.
  What is needed is a bipartisan effort to reform the current H-2A 
system, having the following components:
  Creation of a new, voluntary national registry of migrant farmworkers 
to

[[Page S8841]]

which growers can turn for workers they know are legal.
  If enough domestic workers cannot be supplied through the registry, 
growers could apply for legal guest workers through an expedited, 
reformed H-2A program.
  The new program would resemble current H-2A, but it would have faster 
turnaround, less red tape, and greater certainty for employers.
  It would also have continued protection for workers, and greater 
flexibility for employers, related to conditions of employment, such as 
housing, transportation, and market-based wages.
  I invite my colleagues to support me in this important endeavor.
  Mr. President, again, I appreciate the bipartisan work that has gone 
into this initiative and that we were able to bring it promptly to the 
floor. I hope there is a strong majority, a bipartisan vote in the 
Senate to move it to conference.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from 
California. How much time does she need?
  Mrs. BOXER. Sixty seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield a minute to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to say that what 
we have in front of us is a major rewrite of the Guest Worker Program. 
This particular proposal has had no hearings.
  I have talked with my colleagues, of whom I am very fond, on both 
sides of the issue, and I am getting different responses. One says it 
will vastly increase illegal immigration; the other says it will 
control it.
  One says it will depress agricultural workers' wages; and the other 
one says, no, it is going to get better.
  One says it will take away housing from farm workers; the other says 
it will get better.
  What is the impact on American workers? We don't know. I say to my 
good friends on both sides, something like this ought not be rushed 
away. I have 60 seconds to talk. My colleague from California, who has 
been a leader on this issue, is going to have 4 minutes or 5 minutes. 
This is wrong. We really ought to do this in the right way: send it to 
the committee and have a full hearing.
  I yield back my time to my colleague. I thank him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I request up to 10 minutes of time from 
the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I have been informed by the managers of the bill 
that we have now available on both sides until 3 o'clock. Senator 
Kennedy and I have agreed we will split it evenly. I believe there is 
more time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not. As I 
understand it, what we were going to do is divide the total time 
evenly, from the time the amendment was laid down until the time of the 
vote; am I correct?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. The Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. We are treating it as a 
unanimous consent request, and there is no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, before Senator Graham speaks, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment that we intended to send 
actually be sent, and that the amendment we will be voting on will be 
the one with the changes which we all understand are there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be properly informed. There 
are an extra 5 minutes to each side. The Senator from Oregon has 8 
minutes 39 seconds remaining. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the current system is broken. Let me just give a few 
examples of that collapse. According to the General Accounting Office 
report issued the end of 1997, there were 600,000 illegal agricultural 
workers in the United States--600,000. In my State of Florida, a major 
agricultural production State, in 1997 the number of H-2A visas, the 
visas that would create a legal status for an alien agricultural 
worker, were four; not 400 or 4,000, but four.
  Third, the American worker is disadvantaged under the current system. 
As an example, if an American agricultural worker is employed by an 
American farmer, the American farmer must pay Social Security and other 
employment taxes on the wages earned by that American farm worker. But 
if the American farmer employs a non-U.S. farm worker, those taxes do 
not have to be collected and, thus, there is an incentive to employ the 
foreign worker before employing the American worker.

  Farmers are in a sea of complexity. There is a process under the 
current law in which a farmer can make an application for an H-2A 
worker. Supposedly, that application is to be processed within 20 days. 
In 1996, more than one-third of the applications failed to meet that 
20-day processing period, and so the farmer was not able to get a 
signal as to whether his request for legal foreign workers would be 
met.
  This fails the foreign worker. It fails the foreign workers by 
forcing most of them into an illegal status where they lack the respect 
and protection that a legal program would provide.
  If I could give one example: In August of 1992, after Hurricane 
Andrew hit south Dade County, FL--a major agricultural production 
area--there was concern about a public health epidemic and therefore 
there was the desire to have people immunized against a variety of 
potential diseases.
  The public health officials found it extremely difficult to get the 
agricultural workers to come forward to be immunized for their own 
protection and the protection of the general public because they knew 
they were illegal and were afraid that, by presenting themselves for an 
immunization shot, they would be making themselves subject to 
deportation. That is the kind of fear and terror in which we have over 
600,000 human beings in the United States, who are harvesting our food, 
live on a daily basis.
  Finally, the current system fails the American consumer. We have the 
opportunity in this country and have had historically access to the 
best food produced under the most sanitary conditions and the most 
affordable food in the world. But if we have many more instances, as 
the Senator from Idaho talked about occurred recently in Georgia, where 
a major crop rots on the field because of the inability to secure a 
legal workforce, we will be denying the American consumer what we have 
traditionally assumed is an American birthright.
  Mr. President, the current system is broken. The Senator from Oregon 
and others, who have joined together in this bipartisan effort, have 
attempted to understand what those problems are that contributed to the 
brokenness of the current system and to present a series of 
prescriptions to correct that.
  We look forward to working with our colleagues in a process of 
refining the proposal that we have made, but we believe this represents 
a significant step forward in terms of protecting the rights of 
American workers, of creating a legal workforce for the American 
farmer, and particularly the interest of the American consumer.
  Thank you.


                    Amendment No. 3258, As Modified

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I could not hear the rule on my 
unanimous consent request. And I send a modified amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just reserving the right to--is that the modification 
that we talked about before?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It is, I say to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the amendment (No. 3258), as modified, follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:
               TITLE ____--TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the 
     ``Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 
     1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this title 
     is as follows:


[[Page S8842]]


Sec. ____01. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. ____02. Definitions.
Sec. ____03. Agricultural worker registries.
Sec. ____04. Employer applications and assurances.
Sec. ____05. Search of registry.
Sec. ____06. Issuance of visas and admission of aliens.
Sec. ____07. Employment requirements.
Sec. ____08. Enforcement and penalties.
Sec. ____09. Alternative program for the admission of temporary H-2A 
              workers.
Sec. ____10. Inclusion in employment-based immigration preference 
              allocation.
Sec. ____11. Migrant and seasonal Head Start program.
Sec. ____12. Regulations.
Sec. ____13. Funding from Wagner-Peyser Act.
Sec. ____14. Report to Congress.
Sec. ____15. Effective date.

     SEC. ____02. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Adverse effect wage rate.--The term ``adverse effect 
     wage rate'' means the rate of pay for an agricultural 
     occupation that is 5-percent above the prevailing rate of pay 
     for that agricultural occupation in an area of intended 
     employment, if the average hourly equivalent of the 
     prevailing rate of pay for the occupation is less than the 
     prior year's average hourly earnings of field and livestock 
     workers for the State (or region that includes the State), as 
     determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. No adverse effect 
     wage rate shall be more than the prior year's average hourly 
     earnings of field and livestock workers for the State (or 
     region that includes the State), as determined by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture.
       (2) Agricultural employment.--The term ``agricultural 
     employment'' means any service or activity included within 
     the provisions of section 3(f) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)) or section 3121(g) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the handling, planting, 
     drying, packing, packaging, processing, freezing, or grading 
     prior to delivery for storage of any agricultural or 
     horticultural commodity in its unmanufactured state.
       (3) Eligible.--The term ``eligible'' as used with respect 
     to workers or individuals, means individuals authorized to be 
     employed in the United States as provided for in section 
     274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1188).
       (4) Employer.--The term ``employer'' means any person or 
     entity, including any independent contractor and any 
     agricultural association, that employs workers.
       (5) Job opportunity.--The term ``job opportunity'' means a 
     specific period of employment for a worker in one or more 
     specified agricultural activities.
       (6) Prevailing wage.--The term ``prevailing wage'' means 
     with respect to an agricultural activity in an area of 
     intended employment, the rate of wages that includes the 51st 
     percentile of employees in that agricultural activity in the 
     area of intended employment, expressed in terms of the 
     prevailing method of pay for the agricultural activity in the 
     area of intended employment.
       (7) Registered worker.--The term ``registered worker'' 
     means an individual whose name appears in a registry.
       (8) Registry.--The term ``registry'' means an agricultural 
     worker registry established under section ____03(a).
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Labor.
       (10) United states worker.--The term ``United States 
     worker'' means any worker, whether a United States citizen, a 
     United States national, or an alien who is authorized to work 
     in the job opportunity within the United States other than an 
     alien admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) or 
     218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as in effect on 
     the effective date of this title.

     SEC. ____03. AGRICULTURAL WORKER REGISTRIES.

       (a) Establishment of Registries.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish and 
     maintain a system of registries containing a current database 
     of eligible United States workers who seek to perform 
     temporary or seasonal agricultural work and the employment 
     status of such workers--
       (A) to ensure that eligible United States workers are 
     informed about available agricultural job opportunities;
       (B) to maximize the work period for eligible United States 
     workers; and
       (C) to provide timely referral of such workers to temporary 
     and seasonal agricultural job opportunities in the United 
     States.
       (2) Coverage.--
       (A) Single state or group of states.--Each registry 
     established under paragraph (1) shall include the job 
     opportunities in a single State, or a group of contiguous 
     States that traditionally share a common pool of seasonal 
     agricultural workers.
       (B) Requests for inclusion.--Each State requesting 
     inclusion in a registry, or having any group of agricultural 
     producers seeking to utilize the registry, shall be 
     represented by a registry or by a registry of contiguous 
     States.
       (b) Registration.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible individual who seeks 
     employment in temporary or seasonal agricultural work may 
     apply to be included in the registry for the State or States 
     in which the individual seeks employment. Such application 
     shall include--
       (A) the name and address of the individual;
       (B) the period or periods of time (including beginning and 
     ending dates) during which the individual will be available 
     for temporary or seasonal agricultural work;
       (C) the registry or registries on which the individual 
     desires to be included;
       (D) the specific qualifications and work experience 
     possessed by the applicant;
       (E) the type or types of temporary or seasonal agricultural 
     work the applicant is willing to perform;
       (F) such other information as the applicant wishes to be 
     taken into account in referring the applicant to temporary or 
     seasonal agricultural job opportunities; and
       (G) such other information as may be required by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Validation of employment authorization.--No person may 
     be included on any registry unless the Attorney General has 
     certified to the Secretary of Labor that the person is 
     authorized to be employed in the United States.
       (3) Workers referred to job opportunities.--The name of 
     each registered worker who is referred and accepts employment 
     with an employer pursuant to section ____05 shall be 
     classified as inactive on each registry on which the worker 
     is included during the period of employment involved in the 
     job to which the worker was referred, unless the worker 
     reports to the Secretary that the worker is no longer 
     employed and is available for referral to another job 
     opportunity. A registered worker classified as inactive shall 
     not be referred pursuant to section ____05.
       (4) Removal of names from a registry.--The Secretary shall 
     remove from all registries the name of any registered worker 
     who, on 3 separate occasions within a 3-month period, is 
     referred to a job opportunity pursuant to this section, and 
     who declines such referral or fails to report to work in a 
     timely manner.
       (5) Voluntary removal.--A registered worker may request 
     that the worker's name be removed from a registry or from all 
     registries.
       (6) Removal by expiration.--The application of a registered 
     worker shall expire, and the Secretary shall remove the name 
     of such worker from all registries if the worker has not 
     accepted a job opportunity pursuant to this section within 
     the preceding 12-month period.
       (7) Reinstatement.--A worker whose name is removed from a 
     registry pursuant to paragraph (4), (5), or (6) may apply to 
     the Secretary for reinstatement to such registry at any time.
       (c) Confidentiality of Registries.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain the confidentiality of the registries established 
     pursuant to this section, and the information in such 
     registries shall not be used for any purposes other than 
     those authorized in this title.
       (d) Advertising of Registries.--The Secretary shall widely 
     disseminate, through advertising and other means, the 
     existence of the registries for the purpose of encouraging 
     eligible United States workers seeking temporary or seasonal 
     agricultural job opportunities to register.

     SEC. ____04. EMPLOYER APPLICATIONS AND ASSURANCES.

       (a) Applications to the Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 21 days prior to the date 
     on which an agricultural employer desires to employ a 
     registered worker in a temporary or seasonal agricultural job 
     opportunity, the employer shall apply to the Secretary for 
     the referral of a United States worker through a search of 
     the appropriate registry, in accordance with section ____05. 
     Such application shall--
       (A) describe the nature and location of the work to be 
     performed;
       (B) list the anticipated period (expected beginning and 
     ending dates) for which workers will be needed;
       (C) indicate the number of job opportunities in which the 
     employer seeks to employ workers from the registry;
       (D) describe the bona fide occupational qualifications that 
     must be possessed by a worker to be employed in the job 
     opportunity in question;
       (E) describe the wages and other terms and conditions of 
     employment the employer will offer, which shall not be less 
     (and are not required to be more) than those required by this 
     section;
       (F) contain the assurances required by subsection (c); and
       (G) specify the foreign country or region thereof from 
     which alien workers should be admitted in the case of a 
     failure to refer United States workers under this title.
       (2) Applications by associations on behalf of employer 
     members.--
       (A) In general.--An agricultural association may file an 
     application under paragraph (1) for registered workers on 
     behalf of its employer members.
       (B) Employers.--An application under subparagraph (A) shall 
     cover those employer members of the association that the 
     association certifies in its application have agreed in 
     writing to comply with the requirements of this title.
       (b) Amendment of Applications.--Prior to receiving a 
     referral of workers from a registry, an employer may amend an 
     application under this subsection if the employer's need for 
     workers changes. If an employer amends an application on a 
     date which is later than 21 days prior to the date on which 
     the workers on the amended application are sought to be 
     employed, the Secretary may

[[Page S8843]]

     delay issuance of the report described in section ____05(b) 
     by the number of days by which the filing of the amended 
     application is later than 21 days before the date on which 
     the employer desires to employ workers.
       (c) Assurances.--The assurances referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1)(F) are the following:
       (1) Assurance that the job opportunity is not a result of a 
     labor dispute.--The employer shall assure that the job 
     opportunity for which the employer requests a registered 
     worker is not vacant because a worker is involved in a 
     strike, lockout, or work stoppage in the course of a labor 
     dispute involving the job opportunity at the place of 
     employment.
       (2) Assurance that the job opportunity is temporary or 
     seasonal.--
       (A) Required assurance.--The employer shall assure that the 
     job opportunity for which the employer requests a registered 
     worker is temporary or seasonal.
       (B) Seasonal basis.--For purposes of this title, labor is 
     performed on a seasonal basis where, ordinarily, the 
     employment pertains to or is of the kind exclusively 
     performed at certain seasons or periods of the year and 
     which, from its nature, may not be continuous or carried on 
     throughout the year.
       (C) Temporary basis.--For purposes of this title, a worker 
     is employed on a temporary basis where the employment is 
     intended not to exceed 10 months.
       (3) Assurance of provision of required wages and 
     benefits.--The employer shall assure that the employer will 
     provide the wages and benefits required by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (c) of section ____07 to all workers employed in job 
     opportunities for which the employer has applied under 
     subsection (a) and to all other workers in the same 
     occupation at the place of employment.
       (4) Assurance of employment.--The employer shall assure 
     that the employer will refuse to employ individuals referred 
     under section ____05, or terminate individuals employed 
     pursuant to this title, only for lawful job-related reasons, 
     including lack of work.
       (5) Assurance of compliance with labor laws.--
       (A) In general.--An employer who requests registered 
     workers shall assure that, except as otherwise provided in 
     this title, the employer will comply with all applicable 
     Federal, State, and local labor laws, including laws 
     affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, with 
     respect to all United States workers and alien workers 
     employed by the employer.
       (B) Limitations.--The disclosure required under section 
     201(a) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1821(a)) may be made at any time 
     prior to the time the alien is issued a visa permitting entry 
     into the United States.
       (6) Assurance of advertising of the registry.--The employer 
     shall assure that the employer will, from the day an 
     application for workers is submitted under subsection (a), 
     and continuing throughout the period of employment of any job 
     opportunity for which the employer has applied for a worker 
     from the registry, post in a conspicuous place a poster to be 
     provided by the Secretary advertising the availability of the 
     registry.
       (7) Assurance of contacting former workers.--The employer 
     shall assure that the employer has made reasonable efforts 
     through the sending of a letter by United States Postal 
     Service mail, or otherwise, to contact any eligible worker 
     the employer employed during the previous season in the 
     occupation at the place of intended employment for which the 
     employer is applying for registered workers, and has made the 
     availability of the employer's job opportunities in the 
     occupation at the place of intended employment known to such 
     previous worker, unless the worker was terminated from 
     employment by the employer for a lawful job-related reason or 
     abandoned the job before the worker completed the period of 
     employment of the job opportunity for which the worker was 
     hired.
       (8) Assurance of provision of workers compensation.--The 
     employer shall assure that if the job opportunity is not 
     covered by the State workers' compensation law, that the 
     employer will provide, at no cost to the worker, insurance 
     covering injury and disease arising out of and in the course 
     of the worker's employment which will provide benefits at 
     least equal to those provided under the State workers' 
     compensation law for comparable employment.
       (d) Withdrawal of Applications.--
       (1) In general.--An employer may withdraw an application 
     under subsection (a), except that, if the employer is an 
     agricultural association, the association may withdraw an 
     application under subsection (a) with respect to one or more 
     of its members. To withdraw an application, the employer 
     shall notify the Secretary in writing, and the Secretary 
     shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of such withdrawal 
     notice. An employer who withdraws an application under 
     subsection (a), or on whose behalf an application is 
     withdrawn, is relieved of the obligations undertaken in the 
     application.
       (2) Limitation.--An application may not be withdrawn while 
     any alien provided status under this title pursuant to such 
     application is employed by the employer.
       (3) Obligations under other statutes.--Any obligation 
     incurred by an employer under any other law or regulation as 
     a result of recruitment of United States workers under an 
     offer of terms and conditions of employment required as a 
     result of making an application under subsection (a) is 
     unaffected by withdrawal of such application.
       (e) Review of Application.--
       (1) In general.--Promptly upon receipt of an application by 
     an employer under subsection (a), the Secretary shall review 
     the application for compliance with the requirements of such 
     subsection.
       (2) Approval of applications.--If the Secretary determines 
     that an application meets the requirements of subsection (a), 
     and the employer is not ineligible to apply under paragraph 
     (2), (3), or (4) of section ____08(b), the Secretary shall, 
     not later than 7 days after the receipt of such application, 
     approve the application and so notify the employer.
       (3) Rejection of applications.--If the Secretary determines 
     that an application fails to meet 1 or more of the 
     requirements of subsection (a), the Secretary, as 
     expeditiously as possible, but in no case later than 7 days 
     after the receipt of such application, shall--
       (A) notify the employer of the rejection of the application 
     and the reasons for such rejection, and provide the 
     opportunity for the prompt resubmission of an amended 
     application; and
       (B) offer the applicant an opportunity to request an 
     expedited administrative review or a de novo administrative 
     hearing before an administrative law judge of the rejection 
     of the application.
       (4) Rejection for program violations.--The Secretary shall 
     reject the application of an employer under this section if 
     the employer has been determined to be ineligible to employ 
     workers under section ____08(b) or subsection (b)(2) of 
     section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1188).

     SEC. ____05. SEARCH OF REGISTRY.

       (a) Search Process and Referral to the Employer.--Upon the 
     approval of an application under section ____04(e), the 
     Secretary shall promptly begin a search of the registry of 
     the State (or States) in which the work is to be performed to 
     identify registered workers with the qualifications requested 
     by the employer. The Secretary shall contact such qualified 
     registered workers and determine, in each instance, whether 
     the worker is ready, willing, and able to accept the 
     employer's job opportunity and will commit to work for the 
     employer at the time and place needed. The Secretary shall 
     provide to each worker who commits to work for the employer 
     the employer's name, address, telephone number, the location 
     where the employer has requested that employees report for 
     employment, and a statement disclosing the terms and 
     conditions of employment.
       (b) Deadline for Completing Search Process; Referral of 
     Workers.--As expeditiously as possible, but not later than 7 
     days before the date on which an employer desires work to 
     begin, the Secretary shall complete the search under 
     subsection (a) and shall transmit to the employer a report 
     containing the name, address, and social security account 
     number of each registered worker who has committed to work 
     for the employer on the date needed, together with sufficient 
     information to enable the employer to establish contact with 
     the worker. The identification of such registered workers in 
     a report shall constitute a referral of workers under this 
     section.
       (c) Notice of Insufficient Workers.--If the report provided 
     to the employer under subsection (b) does not include 
     referral of a sufficient number of registered workers to fill 
     all of the employer's job opportunities in the occupation for 
     which the employer applied under section ____04(a), the 
     Secretary shall indicate in the report the number of job 
     opportunities for which registered workers could not be 
     referred, and promptly transmit a copy of the report to the 
     Attorney General and the Secretary of State, by electronic or 
     other means ensuring next day delivery.

     SEC. ____06. ISSUANCE OF VISAS AND ADMISSION OF ALIENS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Number of admissions.--The Secretary of State shall 
     promptly issue visas to, and the Attorney General shall 
     admit, a sufficient number of eligible aliens designated by 
     the employer to fill the job opportunities of the employer--
       (A) upon receipt of a copy of the report described in 
     section ____05(c);
       (B) upon receipt of an application (or copy of an 
     application under subsection (b));
       (C) upon receipt of the report required by subsection 
     (c)(1)(B); or
       (D) upon receipt of a report under subsection (d).
       (2) Procedures.--The admission of aliens under paragraph 
     (1) shall be subject to the procedures of section 218A of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by this title.
       (3) Agricultural associations.--Aliens admitted pursuant to 
     a report described in paragraph (1) may be employed by any 
     member of the agricultural association that has made the 
     certification required by section ____04(a)(2)(B).
       (b) Direct Application Upon Failure To Act.--
       (1) Application to the secretary of state.--If the employer 
     has not received a referral of sufficient workers pursuant to 
     section ____05(b) or a report of insufficient workers 
     pursuant to section ____05(c), by the date that is 7 days 
     before the date on which the work is anticipated to begin, 
     the employer may submit an application for alien workers 
     directly to the Secretary of State, with a copy of the 
     application provided to the Attorney General, seeking the 
     issuance of visas to and the admission of aliens for 
     employment in the job opportunities for

[[Page S8844]]

     which the employer has not received referral of registered 
     workers. Such an application shall include a copy of the 
     employer's application under section ____04(a), together with 
     evidence of its timely submission. The Secretary of State may 
     consult with the Secretary of Labor in carrying out this 
     paragraph.
       (2) Expedited consideration by secretary of state.--The 
     Secretary of State shall, as expeditiously as possible, but 
     not later than 5 days after the employer files an application 
     under paragraph (1), issue visas to, and the Attorney General 
     shall admit, a sufficient number of eligible aliens 
     designated by the employer to fill the job opportunities for 
     which the employer has applied under that paragraph.
       (c) Redetermination of Need.--
       (1) Requests for redetermination.--
       (A) In general.--An employer may file a request for a 
     redetermination by the Secretary of the needs of the employer 
     if--
       (i) a worker referred from the registry is not at the place 
     of employment on the date of need shown on the application, 
     or the date the work for which the worker is needed has 
     begun, whichever is later;
       (ii) the worker is not ready, willing, able, or qualified 
     to perform the work required; or
       (iii) the worker abandons the employment or is terminated 
     for a lawful job-related reason.
       (B) Additional authorization of admissions.--The Secretary 
     shall expeditiously, but in no case later than 72 hours after 
     a redetermination is requested under subparagraph (A), submit 
     a report to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General 
     providing notice of a need for workers under this subsection.
       (2) Job-related requirements.--An employer shall not be 
     required to initially employ a worker who fails to meet 
     lawful job-related employment criteria, nor to continue the 
     employment of a worker who fails to meet lawful, job-related 
     standards of conduct and performance, including failure to 
     meet minimum production standards after a 3-day break-in 
     period.
       (d) Emergency Applications.--Notwithstanding subsections 
     (b) and (c), the Secretary may promptly transmit a report to 
     the Attorney General and Secretary of State providing notice 
     of a need for workers under this subsection for an employer--
       (1) who has not employed aliens under this title in the 
     occupation in question in the prior year's agricultural 
     season;
       (2) who faces an unforeseen need for workers (as determined 
     by the Secretary); and
       (3) with respect to whom the Secretary cannot refer able, 
     willing, and qualified workers from the registry who will 
     commit to be at the employer's place of employment and ready 
     for work within 72 hours or on the date the work for which 
     the worker is needed has begun, whichever is later.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of State shall prescribe 
     regulations to provide for the designation of aliens under 
     this section.

     SEC. ____07. EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Required Wages.--
       (1) In general.--An employer applying under section 
     ____04(a) for workers shall offer to pay, and shall pay, all 
     workers in the occupation or occupations for which the 
     employer has applied for workers from the registry, not less 
     (and is not required to pay more) than the greater of the 
     prevailing wage in the occupation in the area of intended 
     employment or the adverse effect wage rate.
       (2) Payment of prevailing wage determined by a state 
     employment security agency sufficient.--In complying with 
     paragraph (1), an employer may request and obtain a 
     prevailing wage determination from the State employment 
     security agency. If the employer requests such a 
     determination, and pays the wage required by paragraph (1) 
     based upon such a determination, such payment shall be 
     considered sufficient to meet the requirement of paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) Reliance on wage survey.--In lieu of the procedure of 
     paragraph (2), an employer may rely on other information, 
     such as an employer-generated prevailing wage survey and 
     determination that meets criteria specified by the Secretary.
       (4) Alternative methods of payment permitted.--
       (A) In general.--A prevailing wage may be expressed as an 
     hourly wage, a piece rate, a task rate, or other incentive 
     payment method, including a group rate. The requirement to 
     pay at least the prevailing wage in the occupation and area 
     of intended employment does not require an employer to pay by 
     the method of pay in which the prevailing rate is expressed, 
     except that, if the employer adopts a method of pay other 
     than the prevailing rate, the burden of proof is on the 
     employer to demonstrate that the employer's method of pay is 
     designed to produce earnings equivalent to the earnings that 
     would result from payment of the prevailing rate.
       (B) Compliance when paying an incentive rate.--In the case 
     of an employer that pays a piece rate or task rate or uses 
     any other incentive payment method, including a group rate, 
     the employer shall be considered to be in compliance with any 
     applicable hourly wage requirement if the average of the 
     hourly earnings of the workers, taken as a group, the 
     activity for which a piece rate, task rate, or other 
     incentive payment, including a group rate, is paid, for the 
     pay period, is at least equal to the required hourly wage.
       (C) Task rate.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     ``task rate'' means an incentive payment method based on a 
     unit of work performed such that the incentive rate varies 
     with the level of effort required to perform individual units 
     of work.
       (D) Group rate.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     ``group rate'' means an incentive payment method in which the 
     payment is shared among a group of workers working together 
     to perform the task.
       (b) Requirement To Provide Housing.--
       (1) In general.--An employer applying under section 
     ____04(a) for registered workers shall offer to provide 
     housing at no cost (except for charges permitted by paragraph 
     (5)) to all workers employed in job opportunities to which 
     the employer has applied under that section, and to all other 
     workers in the same occupation at the place of employment, 
     whose permanent place of residence is beyond normal commuting 
     distance.
       (2) Type of housing.--In complying with paragraph (1), an 
     employer may, at the employer's election, provide housing 
     that meets applicable Federal standards for temporary labor 
     camps or secure housing that meets applicable local standards 
     for rental or public accommodation housing or other 
     substantially similar class of habitation, or, in the absence 
     of applicable local standards, State standards for rental or 
     public accommodation housing or other substantially similar 
     class of habitation.
       (3) Workers engaged in the range production of livestock.--
     The Secretary shall issue regulations that address the 
     specific requirements for the provision of housing to workers 
     engaged in the range production of livestock.
       (4) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to require an employer to provide or secure housing 
     for persons who were not entitled to such housing under the 
     temporary labor certification regulations in effect on June 
     1, 1986.
       (5) Charges for housing.--
       (A) Utilities and maintenance.--An employer who provides 
     housing to a worker pursuant to paragraph (1) may charge an 
     amount equal to the fair market value (but not greater than 
     the employer's actual cost) for maintenance and utilities, or 
     such lesser amount as permitted by law.
       (B) Security deposit.--An employer who provides housing to 
     workers pursuant to paragraph (1) may require, as a condition 
     for providing such housing, a deposit not to exceed $50 from 
     workers occupying such housing to protect against gross 
     negligence or willful destruction of property.
       (C) Damages.--An employer who provides housing to workers 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) may require a worker found to have 
     been responsible for damage to such housing which is not the 
     result of normal wear and tear related to habitation to 
     reimburse the employer for the reasonable cost of repair of 
     such damage.
       (6) Housing allowance as alternative.--
       (A) In general.--In lieu of offering housing pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), subject to subparagraphs (B) through (D), the 
     employer may on a case-by-case basis provide a reasonable 
     housing allowance. An employer who offers a housing allowance 
     to a worker pursuant to this subparagraph shall not be deemed 
     to be a housing provider under section 203 of the Migrant and 
     Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1823) 
     solely by virtue of providing such housing allowance.
       (B) Limitation.--At any time after the date that is 3 years 
     after the effective date of this title, the governor of the 
     State may certify to the Secretary that there is not 
     sufficient housing available in an area of intended 
     employment of migrant farm workers or aliens provided status 
     pursuant to this title who are seeking temporary housing 
     while employed at farm work. Such certification may be 
     canceled by the governor of the State at any time, and shall 
     expire after 5 years unless renewed by the governor of the 
     State.
       (C) Effect of certification.--If the governor of the State 
     makes the certification of insufficient housing described in 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to an area of employment, 
     employers of workers in that area of employment may not offer 
     the housing allowance described in subparagraph (A) after the 
     date that is 5 years after such certification of insufficient 
     housing for such area, unless the certification has expired 
     or been canceled pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (D) Amount of allowance.--The amount of a housing allowance 
     under this paragraph shall be equal to the statewide average 
     fair market rental for existing housing for nonmetropolitan 
     counties for the State in which the employment occurs, as 
     established by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     pursuant to section 8(c) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)), based on a 2-bedroom dwelling unit 
     and an assumption of 2 persons per bedroom.
       (c) Reimbursement of Transportation.--
       (1) To place of employment.--A worker who is referred to a 
     job opportunity under section ____05(a), or an alien employed 
     pursuant to this title, who completes 50 percent of the 
     period of employment of the job opportunity for which the 
     worker was hired, may apply to the employer for reimbursement 
     of the cost of the worker's transportation and subsistence 
     from the worker's permanent place of residence (or place of 
     last employment, if the worker traveled from such place) to 
     the place of employment to which the worker was referred 
     under section ____05(a).

[[Page S8845]]

       (2) From place of employment.--A worker who is referred to 
     a job opportunity under section ____05(a), or an alien 
     employed pursuant to this title, who completes the period of 
     employment for the job opportunity involved, may apply to the 
     employer for reimbursement of the cost of the worker's 
     transportation and subsistence from the place of employment 
     to the worker's permanent place of residence.
       (3) Limitation.--
       (A) Amount of reimbursement.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the amount of reimbursement provided under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) to a worker or alien shall not exceed 
     the lesser of--
       (i) the actual cost to the worker or alien of the 
     transportation and subsistence involved; or
       (ii) the most economical and reasonable transportation and 
     subsistence costs that would have been incurred had the 
     worker or alien used an appropriate common carrier, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Distance traveled.--No reimbursement under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) shall be required if the distance traveled is 100 
     miles or less.
       (d) Continuing Obligation To Employ United States 
     Workers.--
       (1) In general.--An employer that applies for registered 
     workers under section ____04(a) shall, as a condition for the 
     approval of such application, continue to offer employment to 
     qualified, eligible United States workers who are referred 
     under section ____05(b) after the employer receives the 
     report described in section ____05(b).
       (2) Limitation.--An employer shall not be obligated to 
     comply with paragraph (1)--
       (A) after 50 percent of the anticipated period of 
     employment shown on the employer's application under section 
     ____04(a) has elapsed; or
       (B) during any period in which the employer is employing no 
     aliens in the occupation for which the United States worker 
     was referred; or
       (C) during any period when the Secretary is conducting a 
     search of a registry for job opportunities in the occupation 
     and area of intended employment to which the worker has been 
     referred, or other occupations in the area of intended 
     employment for which the worker is qualified that offer 
     substantially similar terms and conditions of employment.
       (3) Limitation on requirement to provide housing.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, an 
     employer to whom a registered worker is referred pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) may provide a reasonable housing allowance to 
     such referred worker in lieu of providing housing if the 
     employer does not have sufficient housing to accommodate the 
     referred worker and all other workers for whom the employer 
     is providing housing or has committed to provide housing.
       (4) Referral of workers during 50-percent period.--The 
     Secretary shall make all reasonable efforts to place a 
     registered worker in an open job acceptable to the worker, 
     including available jobs not listed on the registry, before 
     referring such worker to an employer for a job opportunity 
     already filled by, or committed to, an alien admitted 
     pursuant to this title.

     SEC. ____08. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.

       (a) Enforcement Authority.--
       (1) Investigation of complaints.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process 
     for the receipt, investigation, and disposition of complaints 
     respecting an employer's failure to meet a condition 
     specified in section ____04 or an employer's 
     misrepresentation of material facts in an application under 
     that section. Complaints may be filed by any aggrieved person 
     or any organization (including bargaining representatives). 
     No investigation or hearing shall be conducted on a complaint 
     concerning such a failure or misrepresentation unless the 
     complaint was filed not later than 12 months after the date 
     of the failure or misrepresentation, as the case may be. The 
     Secretary shall conduct an investigation under this paragraph 
     if there is reasonable cause to believe that such a failure 
     or misrepresentation has occurred.
       (B) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this title limits 
     the authority of the Secretary of Labor to conduct any 
     compliance investigation under any other labor law, including 
     any law affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers 
     or, in the absence of a complaint under this paragraph, under 
     this title.
       (2) Written notice of finding and opportunity for appeal.--
     After an investigation has been conducted, the Secretary 
     shall issue a written determination as to whether or not any 
     violation described in subsection (b) has been committed. The 
     Secretary's determination shall be served on the complainant 
     and the employer, and shall provide an opportunity for an 
     appeal of the Secretary's decision to an administrative law 
     judge, who may conduct a de novo hearing.
       (b) Remedies.--
       (1) Back wages.--Upon a final determination that the 
     employer has failed to pay wages as required under this 
     section, the Secretary may assess payment of back wages due 
     to any United States worker or alien described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     employed by the employer in the specific employment in 
     question. The back wages shall be equal to the difference 
     between the amount that should have been paid and the amount 
     that actually was paid to such worker.
       (2) Failure to pay wages.--Upon a final determination that 
     the employer has failed to pay the wages required under this 
     title, the Secretary may assess a civil money penalty up to 
     $1,000 for each failure, and may recommend to the Attorney 
     General the disqualification of the employer from the 
     employment of aliens described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     for a period of time determined by the Secretary not to 
     exceed 1 year.
       (3) Other violations.--If the Secretary, as a result of an 
     investigation pursuant to a complaint, determines that an 
     employer covered by an application under section ____04(a) 
     has--
       (A) filed an application that misrepresents a material 
     fact; or
       (B) failed to meet a condition specified in section ____04,

     the Secretary may assess a civil money penalty not to exceed 
     $1,000 for each violation and may recommend to the Attorney 
     General the disqualification of the employer for substantial 
     violations in the employment of any United States workers or 
     aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act for a period of time 
     determined by the Secretary not to exceed 1 year. In 
     determining the amount of civil money penalty to be assessed 
     or whether to recommend disqualification of the employer, the 
     Secretary shall consider the seriousness of the violation, 
     the good faith of the employer, the size of the business of 
     the employer being charged, the history of previous 
     violations by the employer, whether the employer obtained a 
     financial gain from the violation, whether the violation was 
     willful, and other relevant factors.
       (4) Program disqualification.--
       (A) 3 years for second violation.--Upon a second final 
     determination that an employer has failed to pay the wages 
     required under this title or committed other substantial 
     violations under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall report 
     such determination to the Attorney General and the Attorney 
     General shall disqualify the employer from the employment of 
     aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act for a period of 3 years.
       (B) Permanent for third violation.--Upon a third final 
     determination that an employer has failed to pay the wages 
     required under this section or committed other substantial 
     violations under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall report 
     such determination to the Attorney General, and the Attorney 
     General shall disqualify the employer from any subsequent 
     employment of aliens described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (c) Role of Associations.--
       (1) Violation by a member of an association.--An employer 
     on whose behalf an application is filed by an association 
     acting as its agent is fully responsible for such 
     application, and for complying with the terms and conditions 
     of this title, as though the employer had filed the 
     application itself. If such an employer is determined to have 
     violated a requirement of this section, the penalty for such 
     violation shall be assessed against the employer who 
     committed the violation and not against the association or 
     other members of the association.
       (2) Violation by an association acting as an employer.--If 
     an association filing an application on its own behalf as an 
     employer is determined to have committed a violation under 
     this subsection which results in disqualification from the 
     program under subsection (b), no individual member of such 
     association may be the beneficiary of the services of an 
     alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act in an occupation in which 
     such alien was employed by the association during the period 
     such disqualification is in effect, unless such member files 
     an application as an individual employer or such application 
     is filed on the employer's behalf by an association with 
     which the employer has an agreement that the employer will 
     comply with the requirements of this title.

     SEC. ____09. ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE ADMISSION OF 
                   TEMPORARY H-2A WORKERS.

       (a) Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
       (1) Election of procedures.--Section 214(c)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking the fifth and sixth sentences;
       (B) by striking ``(c)(1) The'' and inserting ``(c)(1)(A) 
     Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of the 
     importing of any nonimmigrant alien described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), the importing employer may elect to 
     import the alien under the procedures of section 218 or 
     section 218A, except that any employer that applies for 
     registered workers under section ____04(a) of the 
     Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 
     1998 shall import nonimmigrants described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) only in accordance with section 218A. 
     For purposes of subparagraph (A), with respect to the 
     importing of nonimmigrants under section 218, the term 
     `appropriate agencies of Government' means the Department of 
     Labor and includes the Department of Agriculture.''.

[[Page S8846]]

       (2) Alternative program.--The Immigration and Nationality 
     Act is amended by inserting after section 218 (8 U.S.C. 1188) 
     the following new section:


   ``ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE ADMISSION OF TEMPORARY H-2A WORKERS

       ``Sec. 218A. (a) Procedure for Admission or Extension of 
     Aliens.--
       ``(1) Aliens who are outside the united states.--
       ``(A) Criteria for admissibility.--
       ``(i) In general.--An alien described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     shall be admissible under this section if the alien is 
     designated pursuant to section ____06 of the Agricultural Job 
     Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1998, otherwise 
     admissible under this Act, and the alien is not ineligible 
     under clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Disqualification.--An alien shall be ineligible for 
     admission to the United States or being provided status under 
     this section if the alien has, at any time during the past 5 
     years--

       ``(I) violated a material provision of this section, 
     including the requirement to promptly depart the United 
     States when the alien's authorized period of admission under 
     this section has expired; or
       ``(II) otherwise violated a term or condition of admission 
     to the United States as a nonimmigrant, including overstaying 
     the period of authorized admission as such a nonimmigrant.

       ``(iii) Initial waiver of ineligibility for unlawful 
     presence.--An alien who has not previously been admitted to 
     the United States pursuant to this section, and who is 
     otherwise eligible for admission in accordance with clauses 
     (i) and (ii), shall not be deemed inadmissible by virtue of 
     section 212(a)(9)(B).
       ``(B) Period of admission.--The alien shall be admitted for 
     the period requested by the employer not to exceed 10 months, 
     or the ending date of the anticipated period of employment on 
     the employer's application for registered workers, whichever 
     is less, plus an additional period of 14 days, during which 
     the alien shall seek authorized employment in the United 
     States. During the 14-day period following the expiration of 
     the alien's work authorization, the alien is not authorized 
     to be employed unless an employer who is authorized to employ 
     such worker has filed an extension of stay on behalf of the 
     alien pursuant to paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Abandonment of employment.--
       ``(i) In general.--An alien admitted or provided status 
     under this section who abandons the employment which was the 
     basis for such admission or providing status shall be 
     considered to have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status as 
     an alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) and shall 
     depart the United States or be subject to removal under 
     section 237(a)(1)(C)(i).
       ``(ii) Report by employer.--The employer (or association 
     acting as agent for the employer) shall notify the Attorney 
     General within 7 days of an alien admitted or provided status 
     under this Act pursuant to an application to the Secretary of 
     Labor under section ____06 of the Agricultural Job 
     Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1998 by the employer 
     who prematurely abandons the alien's employment.
       ``(D) Issuance of identification and employment eligibility 
     document.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Attorney General shall cause to be 
     issued to each alien admitted under this section a card in a 
     form which is resistant to counterfeiting and tampering for 
     the purpose of providing proof of identity and employment 
     eligibility under section 274A.
       ``(ii) Design of card.--Each card issued pursuant to clause 
     (i) shall be designed in such a manner and contain a 
     photograph and other identifying information (such as date of 
     birth, sex, and distinguishing marks) that would allow an 
     employer to determine with reasonable certainty that the 
     bearer is not claiming the identity of another individual, 
     and shall--

       ``(I) specify the date of the alien's acquisition of status 
     under this section;
       ``(II) specify the expiration date of the alien's work 
     authorization; and
       ``(III) specify the alien's admission number or alien file 
     number.

       ``(2) Extension of stay of aliens in the united states.--
       ``(A) Extension of stay.--If an employer with respect to 
     whom a report or application described in section 
     ____06(a)(1) of the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and 
     Security Act of 1998 has been submitted seeks to employ an 
     alien who has acquired status under this section and who is 
     present in the United States, the employer shall file with 
     the Attorney General an application for an extension of the 
     alien's stay or a change in the alien's authorized 
     employment. The application shall be accompanied by a copy of 
     the appropriate report or application described in section 
     ____06 of the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and 
     Security Act of 1998.
       ``(B) Limitation on filing an application for extension of 
     stay.--An application may not be filed for an extension of an 
     alien's stay for a period of more than 10 months, or later 
     than a date which is 3 years from the date of the alien's 
     last admission to the United States under this section, 
     whichever occurs first.
       ``(C) Work authorization upon filing an application for 
     extension of stay.--An employer may begin employing an alien 
     who is present in the United States who has acquired status 
     under this Act on the day the employer files an application 
     for extension of stay. For the purpose of this requirement, 
     the term `filing' means sending the application by certified 
     mail via the United States Postal Service, return receipt 
     requested, or delivered by guaranteed commercial delivery 
     which will provide the employer with a documented 
     acknowledgment of the date of sending and receipt of the 
     application. The employer shall provide a copy of the 
     employer's application to the alien, who shall keep the 
     application with the alien's identification and employment 
     eligibility document as evidence that the application has 
     been filed and that the alien is authorized to work in the 
     United States. Upon approval of an application for an 
     extension of stay or change in the alien's authorized 
     employment, the Attorney General shall provide a new or 
     updated employment eligibility document to the alien 
     indicating the new validity date, after which the alien is 
     not required to retain a copy of the application.
       ``(D) Limitation on employment authorization of aliens 
     without valid identification and employment eligibility 
     card.--An expired identification and employment eligibility 
     document, together with a copy of an application for 
     extension of stay or change in the alien's authorized 
     employment, shall constitute a valid work authorization 
     document for a period of not more than 60 days from the date 
     of application for the extension of stay, after which time 
     only a currently valid identification and employment 
     eligibility document shall be acceptable.
       ``(E) Limitation on an individual's stay in status.--An 
     alien having status under this section may not have the 
     status extended for a continuous period longer than 3 years 
     unless the alien remains outside the United States for an 
     uninterrupted period of 6 months. An absence from the United 
     States may break the continuity of the period for which a 
     nonimmigrant visa issued under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) 
     is valid. If the alien has resided in the United States 10 
     months or less, an absence breaks the continuity of the 
     period if its lasts for at least 2 months. If the alien has 
     resided in the United States 10 months or more, an absence 
     breaks the continuity of the period if it lasts for at least 
     one-fifth the duration of the stay.
       ``(b) Study by the Attorney General.--The Attorney General 
     shall conduct a study to determine whether aliens under this 
     section depart the United States in a timely manner upon the 
     expiration of their period of authorized stay. If the 
     Attorney General finds that a significant number of aliens do 
     not so depart and that a financial inducement is necessary to 
     assure such departure, then the Attorney General shall so 
     report to Congress and make recommendations on appropriate 
     courses of action.''
       (b) No Family Members Permitted.--Section 101(a)(15)(H) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)) 
     is amended by striking ``specified in this paragraph'' and 
     inserting ``specified in this subparagraph (other than in 
     clause (ii)(a))''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 218 the following new item:

``Sec. 218A. Alternative program for the admission of H-2A workers.''.

       (d) Repeal and Additional Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act is repealed.
       (2) Technical amendments.--(A) Section 218A of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act is redesignated as section 
     218.
       (B) The table of contents of that Act is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 218A.
       (C) The section heading for section 218 of that Act is 
     amended by striking ``alternative program for''.
       (3) Termination of employer election.--Section 214(c)(1)(B) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the procedures of 
     section 218 shall apply to the importing of any nonimmigrant 
     alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a).''.
       (4) Maintenance of certain section 218 provisions.--Section 
     218 (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of this subsection) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Miscellaneous Provisions.--(1) The Attorney General 
     shall provide for such endorsement of entry and exit 
     documents of nonimmigrants described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii) as may be necessary to carry out this 
     section and to provide notice for purposes of section 274A.
       ``(2) The provisions of subsections (a) and (c) of section 
     214 and the provisions of this section preempt any State or 
     local law regulating admissibility of nonimmigrant 
     workers.''.
       (5) Effective date.--The repeal and amendments made by this 
     subsection shall take effect 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this title.

     SEC. ____10. INCLUSION IN EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRATION 
                   PREFERENCE ALLOCATION.

       (a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
     Section 203(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
       (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:

[[Page S8847]]

       ``(iii) Agricultural workers.--Qualified immigrants who 
     have completed at least 6 months of work in the United States 
     in each of 4 consecutive calendar years under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), and have complied with all terms and 
     conditions applicable to that section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 203(b)(3)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``subparagraph (A)(iii)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (A)(iv)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply to aliens described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) admitted to the United States before, 
     on, or after the effective date of this title.

     SEC. ____11. MIGRANT AND SEASONAL HEAD START PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 637(12) of the Head Start Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9832(12)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and seasonal'' after ``migrant''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
     families whose incomes or labor is primarily dedicated to 
     performing seasonal agricultural labor for hire but whose 
     places of residency have not changed to another geographic 
     location in the preceding 2-year period''.
       (b) Funds Set-Aside.--Section 640(a) (42 U.S.C. 9835(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), strike ``13'' and insert ``14'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
     ``1998''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) In determining the need for migrant and seasonal Head 
     Start programs and services, the Secretary shall consult with 
     the Secretary of Labor, other public and private entities, 
     and providers. Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(A), after 
     conducting such consultation, the Secretary shall further 
     adjust the amount available for such programs and services, 
     taking into consideration the need and demand for such 
     services.''.

     SEC. ____12. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations of the Attorney General.--The Attorney 
     General shall consult with the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture on all regulations to implement the duties of the 
     Attorney General under this title.
       (b) Regulations of the Secretary of State.--The Secretary 
     of State shall consult with the Attorney General on all 
     regulations to implement the duties of the Secretary of State 
     under this title.

     SEC. ____13. FUNDING.

       If additional funds are necessary to pay the start-up costs 
     of the registries established under section ____03(a), such 
     costs may be paid out of amounts available to Federal or 
     State governmental entities under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 
     U.S.C. 49 et seq.). Except as provided for by subsequent 
     appropriation, additional expenses incurred for 
     administration by the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Labor, and Secretary of State shall be paid for out of 
     appropriations otherwise.

     SEC. ____14. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act and 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Attorney General and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Labor 
     shall jointly prepare and transmit to Congress a report 
     describing the results of a review of the implementation of 
     and compliance with this title. The report shall address--
       (1) whether the program has ensured an adequate and timely 
     supply of qualified, eligible workers at the time and place 
     needed by employers;
       (2) whether the program has ensured that aliens admitted 
     under this program are employed only in authorized 
     employment, and that they timely depart the United States 
     when their authorized stay ends;
       (3) whether the program has ensured that participating 
     employers comply with the requirements of the program with 
     respect to the employment of United States workers and aliens 
     admitted under this program;
       (4) whether the program has ensured that aliens admitted 
     under this program are not displacing eligible, qualified 
     United States workers or diminishing the wages and other 
     terms and conditions of employment of eligible United States 
     workers;
       (5) whether the housing provisions of this program ensure 
     that adequate housing is available to workers employed under 
     this program who are required to be provided housing or a 
     housing allowance; and
       (6) recommendations for improving the operation of the 
     program for the benefit of participating employers, eligible 
     United States workers, participating aliens, and governmental 
     agencies involved in administering the program.

     SEC. ____15. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this title.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. We are going to reserve that for the Senator 
from Washington.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, in 1960, Edward R. Murrow shocked the Nation with his 
famous television documentary on the exploitation of farm workers in 
America. His report, ``Harvest of Shame,'' led to the repeal of the 
bracero program in 1964, under which 4.6 million Mexican workers had 
been brought to this country to harvest U.S. crops under harsh and 
abusive conditions.
  I remember very clearly as a junior member on the Human Resources 
Committee the extensive hearings that we had and the travels that we 
took to many different parts of this country.
  Yet here we are today considering an amendment that creates a new 
large-scale foreign agricultural worker program. Don't we ever learn? 
Have the special interests no shame.
  A new bracero program would be harmful to American farmworkers, 
harmful to efforts to control illegal immigration, and harmful to the 
nation.
  If the Senate votes for this amendment, it is voting for another 
``harvest of shame.'' It is voting to let thousands of poor foreign 
farmworkers come here and stay permanently. This amendment opens the 
floodgates to foreign workers. It gives them permanent green cards if 
they work here for four consecutive harvests.
  This amendment turns its back on years of efforts to improve 
conditions for America's farmworkers we admit under the current 
immigration laws.
  A vast new guest worker program is completely unnecessary. As the 
General Accounting Office said in December: ``Ample supplies of farm 
labor appear to be available in most areas.''
  I refer our colleagues to page 6 of the December publication of the 
GAO. It says:

       GAO's own analysis suggests, and many farm labor experts, 
     government officials, and grower and farm labor advocates 
     agree, that a widespread farm labor shortage has not occurred 
     in recent years and does not now appear to exist. . . It 
     found that 13 counties maintained annual double-digit 
     unemployment rates, and 19 percent had rates above the 
     national average.

  The late Barbara Jordan and her Commission on Immigration Reform 
unanimously--unanimously--concluded that creating such a program would 
be a ``grievous mistake''. Every Federal immigration commission in 
modern times has concluded that agricultural guestworker programs 
should not be expanded. The Commission on Immigration Reform, the 
Commission on Agricultural Workers in 1992, and the Hesburgh Commission 
in 1981 all reached that conclusion.
  The so-called protections in this amendment can be easily 
circumvented. The Department of Labor does not even have the authority 
to limit the issuance of visas if it finds that the employment of 
foreign labor is hurting U.S. workers. This bill strips all of the 
protections in the current program.
  First, this amendment weakens the requirements to hire American 
farmworkers first. It requires the Department of Labor to set up a new 
high-tech registry in which growers post their jobs and American 
workers who register with the Labor Department can be matched with 
them. But all a company has to do is check the registry--if it can't 
get a worker right away, it can bring in a foreign worker. A check with 
the registry is the only recruitment an employer has to do, and we do 
not know if the registry will even work.
  Most American farmworkers earn less than $12,000 a year. They don't 
have computers at home, where they can log onto the Internet and check 
the registry. In fact, many American farmworkers can't even afford 
telephones to call the registry. Until we know that a registry really 
can work, it is nothing but a gimmick that lets growers evade their 
responsibility to hire U.S. workers first.
  This amendment also eliminates the requirement that growers must 
provide housing for the foreign workers they bring in. Even under the 
discredited bracero program, employers were required to provide 
housing.
  But under this amendment, all growers have to provide is a housing 
voucher. What foreign worker can negotiate the American housing market? 
How can a farmworker from Mexico or the Caribbean find an apartment in 
rural America to rent for just a few weeks when he doesn't know his way 
around, can't speak English, and doesn't have a car? You can make the 
housing as generous as you want. But many of these workers are going to 
be homeless.

[[Page S8848]]

  This amendment also weakens the wage standards and will depress the 
wages of American farmworkers already struggling to make ends meet. 
American farmworkers are the poorest of the working poor. I ask 
unanimous consent that an article from the New York Times be printed at 
this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, July 19, 1998]

         The Middle Class: Winning in Politics, Losing in Life

                          (By Louis Uchitelle)

       The great American middle class, Politicians of the left 
     and right court it. Policies, liberal and conservative, are 
     proclaimed on its behalf. Health care reform was to have 
     eased its cares. Tuition subsidies educate its children. 
     President Clinton made a ``middle class tax cut'' a 
     centerpiece of his election campaign.
       Most voters see themselves as members of the middle class, 
     so Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, picked up the theme. 
     When the Republican-controlled Congress finally passed a tax 
     bill last year, he described it as the Republican 
     ``fulfillment of what President Clinton promised--a middle 
     class tax cut.''
       But for all its mythic power, the middle class is finishing 
     last in the race for improvement in the current economic 
     boom. At the top and bottom of the economic ladder, wages are 
     rising briskly. In the middle, they are rising slowly. This 
     is unusual. While upper-income people often improve their lot 
     faster than the middle class, lower-income workers hardly 
     ever do.
       The middle class of political exhortation and national myth 
     isn't the same as the statistical middle of the wage scale, 
     the place where progress is surprisingly slow. Half of the 
     so-called middle class tax cuts enacted last year went to 
     people earning more than $93,000. And while the median 
     household earns almost $40,000 a year, the median individual 
     wage is much lower: $11.13 an hour last month, or about 
     $23,000 a year for a 40-hour work week.
       It isn't that workers in this statistical middle--people 
     earning roughly $23,000 to $32,000 a year for a 40-hour 
     week--are visibly aggrieved because they are losing ground to 
     their upper- and lower-earning fellow citizens. After all, 
     their pay has gone up faster than the inflation rate over the 
     last two years, even if the increase is not as great as the 
     one experienced by lower- and upper-income workers.
       ``Everyone seems to be reacting to the favorable 
     improvement in their pay,'' said Richard Curtin, director of 
     consumer surveys at the University of Michigan. ``But the 
     longer the expansion lasts, the more people will turn toward 
     comparisons with other groups. That's when the grumbling and 
     the wage demands begin. When you look across society, you are 
     not really seeing that yet.''


                         The Middle-Class Life

       Lots of things can help someone improve his lot in life, of 
     course. A rising stock market, tax breaks, inheritance, 
     government subsidies like Medicare and Social Security, extra 
     hours on the job and overtime pay all pay roles, particularly 
     for those at the top and bottom of the income ladder. The 
     really wealthy often rely not on wages but on earnings from 
     their investments. And many households put together the wages 
     of two or three household members, bringing the median 
     household income to nearly $40,000, which is enough to live a 
     middle-class life in most of the United States.
       By some estimates, a family of four must bring in at least 
     $27,000 a year from one or more wage earners to maintain what 
     John Schwarz, a political scientist at Arizona State 
     University, describes as ``a minimally adequate standard of 
     living.'' In pursuit of that goal, most people measure their 
     standing in the work force by what they earn individually on 
     the job.
       The bottom 20 percent on the national wage scale, earning 
     $14,500 a year or less for a 40-hour week, has gained the 
     most ground over the last two years, once wages are adjusted 
     for inflation. Upper-income Americans, those earning north of 
     $75,000 a year, have gained almost us much as the low-income 
     people in the same two-year stretch. The middle group has 
     gained a little ground since 1996, but less than the others.


                              Breakthrough

       Viewed over the full eight years of the current economic 
     expansion, the middle has actually lost ground, while the top 
     and the bottom have gained at roughly the same gradual pace. 
     Once wages are adjusted for inflation, the low end, for the 
     first time, has regained all the ground lost in the early 
     1990's and is now earning more than in 1989, when the last 
     economic expansion ended and a recession set in, undercutting 
     wages.
       Workers earnings slightly more than the poorest group or, 
     at the other extreme, somewhat less than the richest wage 
     earners, also did better than those in the middle, although 
     not as well as those at either extreme.
       The breakthrough came this year. The low-end wage, a 
     maximum of $6.99 an hour last month for the bottom 20 
     percent, was 20 cents higher than in 1989, adjusted for 
     inflation, according to the Economic Policy Institute, which 
     calculated the trends from data provided by the Labor 
     Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics.
       By comparison, the median wage, smack in the middle, was 
     $11.13 an hour in June, or 17 cents lower than in 1989. The 
     upper end, mostly peopled by well educated and skilled 
     workers, seldom loses ground in any year. At the high end, 
     the wage of $24.63 an hour today, adjusted for inflation, is 
     91 cents ahead of the comparable 1989 level.
       There are reasons, of course, for the slide in the middle. 
     Despite all the rhetorical emphasis on policies that favor 
     the middle class, it is low-income workers who have gotten 
     the extra nod from Washington in this economic expansion--
     particularly through a 90-cents-an-hour increase in the 
     minimum wage since October 1996. It was an increase that the 
     Democrats proposed and the Republicans in Congress finally 
     favored.
       The minimum reached $5.15 an hour last September, and the 
     ripple effect has pushed up wages for workers earning as much 
     as 50 cents an hour over the minimum. That is a big portion 
     of the people in the lower 20 percent of the American work 
     force.
       ``The higher minimum wage is the key factor that has lifted 
     people at the bottom,'' said Edward Wolff, a labor economist 
     at New York University, whose own earnings calculations 
     produced roughly the same results as those of the Economic 
     Policy Institute.
       The economy has played a big role, too. A surge in growth 
     over the last two years and a falling unemployment rate 
     produced labor shortages that showed up first at the low end 
     of the work force. Meanwhile, middle-level workers, while 
     finding jobs easily enough, had more difficulty raising their 
     wages. Mr. Wolff and other labor economists tick off the 
     reasons.
       Computers have diluted the demand for clerks, secretaries 
     and other medium-skilled workers. Unions, once the powerful 
     bargaining agents of middle Americans, are weak today. Rising 
     imports have hurt workers who make the same goods in this 
     country. Corporate downsizing spread in the 1990's through 
     white-collar ranks, making middle-income people feel less 
     secure in their jobs and more reluctant to push for raises. 
     And a bigger percentage of the work force now has a college 
     education or at least some college training, diluting the 
     demand for them. The wages of people with only four years of 
     college are no longer rising.
       ``While middle income people benefit from the tight labor 
     market, they have a harder time digging themselves out of the 
     wage hole,'' said Jared Bernstein, a labor economist at the 
     Economic Policy Institute.


                              hard to help

       They are also harder for government to help, says Edward 
     Montgomery, the Labor Department's chief economist. A huge 
     swath of people who earn roughly $23,000 to $55,000 a year--
     and pay more than 40 percent of all Federal income taxes--are 
     much more on their own than lower-income workers. There are 
     government-subsidized training programs, for example, to get 
     unemployed people into the low end of the labor force. The 
     minimum wage and the earned-income tax credit (a Republican 
     initiative that rebates tax revenue to low-wage workers) put 
     a floor under their income. But middle-level people depend 
     much more on their own dealings with their employers to 
     determine their situations.
       ``It is harder for government policies to reach these 
     middle level people,'' Mr. Montgomery said. ``In a free 
     enterprise society, we are hesitant to subsidize an employer 
     for something he would do anyway.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. This study shows that despite the extraordinary 
prosperity we have seen in the United States, the farmworkers are on 
the lowest rung--working the hardest--the lowest rung of the economic 
ladder and have moved backward in terms of their real purchasing power. 
They already suffer double-digit unemployment, and this amendment will 
make that crisis worse. It eliminates the requirement in current 
immigration law that foreign workers must be paid a wage that will not 
depress wages for American farmworkers.
  Even if an American worker shows up early in a harvest, he will not 
be guaranteed the job if an employer has foreign workers. In fact, that 
is the way most American migrant farmworkers get their jobs--by just 
showing up. For years--for decades--they have travelled farm to farm at 
harvest time. They show up for the job, harvest after harvest.
  Under current law, if an American worker shows up in the first half 
of a harvest, he gets the job, even if a foreign worker is already 
there. This is called the ``50 percent rule.'' Under this amendment, if 
that American worker is not on the new computer ``registry,'' he cannot 
get the job.
  I am also concerned that this amendment will encourage illegal 
immigration. After spending billions of dollars to strengthen the 
Border Patrol to keep illegal immigrants out, it makes no sense to 
instruct the INS to cut a gaping hole in the border fence, and look the 
other way as illegal immigrants pour through.
  We know from the hard lesson of past experiences that foreign 
agricultural

[[Page S8849]]

worker programs create patterns of illegal immigration that can't be 
stopped. The first workers to come here may be legal, have temporary 
work visas--but they create an endless chain of illegal immigration, as 
relatives, neighbors, and friends follow them into America.
  In fact, under this amendment, if you work in this program for four 
years, you get a green card and can stay in America forever. An 
unlimited number of workers can enter under this reckless program. 
There is no cap. Hundreds of thousands of workers can come in, work 
four years, get green cards, and stay forever.
  As Philip Martin, a leading agricultural labor economist at the 
University of California at Davis, has stated, when it comes to 
temporary foreign worker programs, ``There is nothing more permanent 
than a temporary worker.''
  The original bracero program did not really end in 1964. It 
established a permanent, well-traveled path of illegal immigration. And 
three and a half decades later, we are still paying a price. A 
comprehensive joint study by the United States and Mexico, completed 
last year, put it this way:

       History has shown that U.S.-sanctioned bracero recruitment 
     in the 1950s oriented many Mexican workers toward the U.S. 
     labor market instead of toward local jobs and development. 
     This began a tradition of migration, raised expectations, and 
     set into place a baseline of individuals and families who 
     would eventually reside permanently in the U.S. Although 
     meant to be a temporary supply of workers, an unintended 
     consequence was to create a resident population.

  This amendment adds to that problem, Mr. President. I think it will 
hurt America's vulnerable farmworkers and cause permanent damage to our 
immigration policies. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I am really disappointed that this program is being 
ramrodded through on an appropriations bill. This program represents a 
huge new immigration program and no one should think to the contrary.
  Fifty percent of all the people that are going to come in from other 
countries under this program will go to one State--California. 
California has not been afforded the time to do the analysis to see how 
this program would affect it. This program is a Trojan horse.
  When I heard the testimony on a registry program on the Judiciary 
Committee I thought, ``Great idea; I want to support it.'' When the 
Senators made the announcement, I was a cosponsor. Then I saw that 
attached to the concept of the registry program was also a huge 
immigration program with no controls whatever, no way of asserting 
whether individuals go back, and as a matter of fact--and I will 
explain that shortly--setting up incentives for these people to remain 
in the country in a legal status. In California, this will mean 
literally tens of thousands of additional immigrants coming into the 
State. We currently have 2 million people in California in illegal 
status. This will only add to the number of illegal status.
  Let me say how this will happen. Under the amendment, if the 
Department of Labor cannot find American workers--and there is no 
registry in place in California--this bill will go into play. The large 
agricultural associations will apply for 20,000, 30,000 permits at a 
time. The Department of Labor has 7 days to respond to that. If they 
don't respond to that huge number in that period of time, the permits 
are authorized and the foreign workers come in. There is no way of 
knowing who they are, whether they have any bona fide documents.
  Additionally, once a worker is in this country for 10 months, they 
can apply for a 3-year extension. Therefore, you effectively are 
granting a stay of 3 years to someone who comes in. They then should 
return, and if they come back for one more year, they are here for all 
time. They gain legal status under this program. There are no caps on 
any numbers being brought in.
  The major part of concern in this bill--and I want this in the 
Record, is section 6(b)1, the application to the Secretary of State 
that sets up this 7-day period when the employer submits the 
application for alien workers directly to the Secretary of State with a 
copy of the application provided to the Attorney General seeking the 
issuance of visas and the admission of aliens for employment in the job 
opportunities for which the employer has not received referral of 
registered workers.
  Then there is an expedited consideration by the Secretary of 5 days.
  It is physically impossible to consider 20 or 30,000 applications in 
5 days. It is set up to permit the entry of large numbers of people 
about whom nothing will be known--whether they really will go home, 
whether they really will stay at the job, work at the job. I think this 
is going to make the Bracero Program look good in retrospect.
  Now, what I object to is I would like to vote for something that 
would help what is becoming an increasing problem. That increasing 
problem is that increasingly farmers cannot find adequate labor to 
harvest their crops. In our State, you have these counties with 20 
percent and 30 percent unemployment rates. It is amazing, but it is 
true. Unemployment rate is high, but the farmer cannot find the help. 
This is where the registry was supposed to help. But the registry and 
the importation program go into effect simultaneously. Consequently, if 
there is nobody on the registry, you have the opening to import 20, 30, 
50, 75,000 workers with no limit. That is what I had hoped we would 
have the time to work out. We don't know whether the housing allowance 
will work in California. California isn't Oregon. Costs are much 
higher. Housing is unavailable.


         Amendment No. 3282 to Amendment No. 3258, as Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would suggest that until the time 
has either been used or yielded back, an amendment is not in order.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. All right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the proponent of the major 
amendment knew that this was going to be offered. I ask unanimous 
consent it be in order now to be able to offer the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3282 to amendment No. 3258.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 20, line 19, after the period, insert: 
     ``Independent contractors, agricultural associations and such 
     similar entities shall be subject to a cap on the number of 
     H2-A visas that they may sponsor at the discretion of the 
     Secretary of Labor.''

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What this does, and I quote from the amendment:

       Independent contractors, agricultural associations and such 
     similar entities shall be subject to a cap on the number of 
     H2-A visas that they may sponsor at the discretion of the 
     Secretary of Labor.

  This would give the Secretary of Labor the opportunity to see that 
there is a reasonable number attached to this limited processing time 
because with the limited processing time, if you apply for 50,000 
people, as could well be the case in California, you would not be able 
to meet the processing deadline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes remaining; opposing 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is hard to do justice to the topic 
in 5 minutes.
  Let me say I think something is happening on the floor of the Senate 
that takes us backward as a nation. There have been many people that 
have given their sweat and tears and even blood to try and improve 
conditions for farm workers. There have been Senators in the past that 
have done that. This amendment really undercuts some of this very 
important work.
  What we are saying in this amendment is essentially this: We are 
saying

[[Page S8850]]

to the growers, listen, you don't have to really worry about the 
market. If the growers can't find the workers, pay better wages and 
have better working conditions. How many more reports do we have to 
have, from Harvest of Shame, to reports today of working conditions? 
The wages and uncivilized working conditions of farm workers are a 
national disgrace. If the growers want to have people working for them, 
then just have civilized working conditions and decent wages.
  What this amendment essentially says is that what we are going to do 
is actually add to the exploitation by enabling you growers to 
essentially rely on a new guest worker program. Mr. President, we don't 
need a new guest worker program. Senator Kennedy talked about the GAO 
report. I heard the farm worker justice fund mentioned earlier. They 
don't talk about this as reform; they talk about it as deform. We have 
a very strange situation here. We are saying that the growers can't get 
the workers, and now what we have is a program that cuts payments for 
guest workers. This cuts the payments for the guest workers. So in 
order to attract more workers, we enable growers to rely on people 
coming in from other countries, and we cut their wages.
  I don't call this reform. I don't call this a change for the better. 
What we are essentially doing is putting the Federal Government at the 
service of a sector--in this particular case the growers--as a source 
of cheap labor. It is a huge mistake. Now, if we want to do better by 
way of working conditions for legal workers, I am all for it. If we 
want to reform the Guest Worker Program, I am all for it. But that is 
not what this is about. This is a huge step backward.
  I hear about the vouchers. I mean, I did a lot of organizing in rural 
communities. The question is whether there is any housing. What good 
does it do to have vouchers if there isn't adequate housing there? We 
no longer deal with that protection. Then, in addition, the three-
fourths minimum work guarantee is eliminated.
  Workers who used to travel long distances are now promised wages for 
at least three-fourths of the season for which they are being hired. 
That guarantee is no longer there. This essentially takes the Guest 
Worker Program backwards. It adds to exploitation. It undercuts the 
working conditions of farm workers, which are already atrocious in this 
country. I say to the growers, with all due respect, if you want to 
have more people working for you, pay decent wages, have civilized 
working conditions. We ought not to be asking the Federal Government to 
essentially move in and supply these growers with a form of cheap 
labor, exploited labor. This isn't reform, this is deform. I hope there 
will be a strong vote against it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I yield the balance of our time 
to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, these agricultural workers are already 
here. The Senator from California spoke of 2 million illegal workers 
already here. But we would think from the remarks of the opponents of 
this amendment that somehow or another we were spoiling a very good 
system that gave high wages, a wonderful set of attractions, and only 
needed to be strengthened. We aren't, Mr. President.
  We have a situation that makes a violator of the law out of almost 
every agricultural employer in the United States of America who needs 
labor on a seasonal basis. What we propose to do is to say that many of 
these workers, whatever their conditions, are infinitely superior to 
the country from which they came, which is the reason they are willing 
to pay good money to be smuggled across our borders, several of whom 
die in the desert in the attempt to hide during the time that they are 
here, not to claim any of the rights they might otherwise have.
  Our proposal would make many of them legally here, with very real 
rights, with the ability to go home legally and to come back again 
legally, rather than to have to stay because of the difficulty of 
crossing the border. Mr. President, tens of thousands of words have 
been uttered on the floor of this Senate in the last 3 weeks about the 
plight of our farmers, with collapsed Asian markets and lower prices. 
Here, for once, we have an opportunity to do something tangible for our 
farm community, to give them the labor that they cannot get in any 
legal fashion from citizens, or others, to allow them to be law-
abiding, as they wish to do; and instead we have an argument that we 
better keep the present system; we better keep a system in which there 
are millions of illegal farm workers here because we don't care to try 
something that allows this labor to be provided legally. That is the 
difference.
  Do we want the labor that is there now, and will be there tomorrow, 
to be legal labor? Or do we think the present situation with all these 
illegals is perfectly fine? Yes or no; up or down. Let's allow these 
people to be here legally, to help us to improve their own lives 
legally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remain.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield a minute to Senator Wyden.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for his patience. It has been 
mentioned that this is in some way a bracero program. My friends, this 
is not. Under the Bracero Program, for example, there was no right of 
first refusal for U.S. workers to available jobs in our country. That 
is what is different here--U.S. workers first, first dibs on any 
available position.
  Point No. 2: There has been discussion that this amendment would in 
some way increase illegal immigration. Right now, of the 1.6 million 
farm workers, perhaps a million of them are illegal. What we are 
advocating is an above-ground system that guarantees fundamental 
protections to legal workers. Some of our opponents, it seems to me, 
prefer an underground system that is going to keep thousands of those 
workers hidden in the back of a U-Haul trailer or the trunk of a car. 
That is not humane. We don't want those workers in the back of a U-Haul 
or in the trunk of a car. We want them participating in a legal, humane 
system that rewards both the workers and the growers. That is why this 
proposal makes sense. I hope it will receive strong support from our 
colleagues.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have talked to the managers of the bill 
about the acceptance of an amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3283 to Amendment No. 3258

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3283 to amendment No. 3258.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:

     SEC.   . PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

       In implementing this title, the President of the United 
     States shall not implement any provision that he deems to be 
     in violation of any of the following principles: where the 
     procedures for using the program are simple and the least 
     burdensome for growers; which assures an adequate labor 
     supply for growers in a predictable and timely manner; that 
     provides a clear and meaningful first preference for U.S. 
     farm workers and a means for mitigating against the 
     development of a structural dependency on foreign workers in 
     an area or crop; which avoids the transfer of costs and risks 
     from businesses to low wage workers; that encourages longer 
     periods of employment for legal U.S. workers; and which 
     assures decent wages and working conditions for domestic and 
     foreign farm workers, and that normal market forces work to 
     improve wages, benefits, and working conditions.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, as I have expressed, I have serious concerns about the 
development of this program. Similar kinds of programs have been 
considered and rejected by the Hesburgh Commission.

[[Page S8851]]

 The Barbara Jordan Commission, which really had many thoughtful men 
and women on it, reviewed these kinds of programs and expressed the 
same kinds of concerns that I have expressed here briefly this 
afternoon. For that reason, as well as the very important adverse 
impact that I think it will have on wages; and because of its impact in 
terms of opening up some unpredictable, unknown, and uncertain aspects 
of immigration policy that I oppose this.
  Having said all that, I commend my friends, Senator Smith and Senator 
Wyden. They have appeared before our committees on this issue. They 
have been enormously constructive and positive and responsive to those 
that had differing views on this. They have, brought a very 
considerable amount of thought to this issue and they have impressed 
me, as I know they have all Members, about their willingness to try and 
work this thing through in a constructive way. I intend to vote in 
opposition for the reasons outlined. But I want to work with them and 
see if we cannot respond to these kinds of concerns. Both of them have 
expressed their deep-seated concerns about these issues as well. We do 
have differences, but they have demonstrated on this issue, as in other 
areas, a willingness to try and find common ground. I thank them for 
their courtesies to date and for their willingness to continue to 
develop something that is going to be effective. I and others who share 
this view will look forward to working with them.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield whatever time I have to the 
Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  I join in the spirit of trying to work on this issue to resolve a 
situation that I truly believe is broken. If we don't succeed in this, 
we are frankly not going to say that we are content with the status 
quo. The status quo is not acceptable. These people are here in this 
country illegally. There ought to be a way in which they can be here 
legally to do this work, which they want to do, and which we need them 
to do in order to avoid a serious crisis on the American farm.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is historic. It is 
important. But it is also a work in progress. This bill represents 
progress.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on the Kennedy second-degree amendment.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that the underlying amendment be 
modified with our amendment. I ask unanimous consent that be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3282 and 3283) were agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand it, Mr. President, the proposal of the 
Senators from California and Massachusetts has been included in the 
underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. For the information of all of our Members, we will begin 
voting on this amendment and then proceed to final passage at 
approximately 3:30.


 Modification to Amendment No. 3261, As Modified, Previously Agreed To

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Specter a technical modification to the Craig amendment numbered 3261.

       ``(2) Within funds appropriated in this Act for necessary 
     expenses of the Offices of United States Attorneys, 
     $1,500,000 shall be available for the Attorney General to 
     hire additional assistant U.S. attorneys and investigators in 
     the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for a demonstration 
     project to identify and prosecute individuals in possession 
     of firearms in violation of federal law.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, while we are waiting, I would like to take 
a moment. We are, hopefully, about to move to final passage after the 
vote on the Smith amendment is taken care of.
  I would like to take a moment to thank the staff for the 
extraordinarily hard work they put into this. Both the majority staff 
and the minority staff spent countless hours bringing this bill 
forward. It is a complicated bill. They spent the last 3 or 4 days, 
almost, working on it. We have seen a lot of amendments. More than a 
little bit of intricate thought has gone into it. It has a very complex 
matrix of issues. And it could not possibly have been managed without 
the strong and professional support that we have received from the 
staff.
  I would like to also specifically thank former minority clerk Scott 
Gudes, who has moved on but whose work for 12 years on this committee 
was extraordinary, and whom I very much enjoyed working with. His 
replacement, Lila Helms, is a great addition and has carried on Scott's 
exceptional work. Emelie East and Dereck Orr have also been great 
assets, I am sure, to the minority and to the majority, as a result of 
their efforts.
  On my own staff, countless hours have been put in, and I especially 
thank Jim Morhard, who is clerk of the committee. I don't think he has 
seen his family, or anyone else, other than the inside of these walls 
for days and weeks. I very much appreciate his efforts and the 
expertise he has brought to this.
  Along with him, the professional staff of Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, 
Carl Truscott, Dana Quam, and Vas Alexopoulos have been extraordinary; 
Kris Pickler, and Jackie Cooney of my personal staff, and Virginia 
Wilbert, who have been extraordinary also, have not only put their oars 
in but have aggressively rowed this boat toward the shore. We hope it 
will arrive very soon.
  It is really a team effort. And we have an extremely strong team, a 
team made up of Cal Ripkens and Ken Griffeys. We are very lucky to have 
them, and we thank them for all their time and effort.
  I have been advised that the Democratic leader is willing to proceed 
with a vote at 3:15. We will begin voting on the Smith amendment at 
3:15.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank Chairman Gregg in the first 
instance. I have had the occasion to handle several bills myself. I 
have watched it for over 30 years. Several Senators on our side of the 
aisle have remarked along with me in the back of the cloakroom that 
they have never seen a bill that was better managed and that Senator 
Gregg has done an outstanding job, which I want to note for the Record.
  As the distinguished Senator stated, the staffs on both sides have 
just done an outstanding job. They worked around the clock. I have 
never seen this many amendments actually move in this short a time. It 
couldn't have been done, of course, without the folks here right at the 
front desk on both sides of the aisle.
  Let me thank Jim Morhard, Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Carl Truscott, 
Dan Quam, and Virginia Wilbert, of the majority staff; and Lila Helms, 
Emelie East, and Dereck Orr. Actually, as Senator Gregg has pointed 
out, Lila has come in now to replace Scott Gudes, which is next to 
impossible. He was as good as there ever was. But she has already 
brought that statement into contest. She, Emelie East, and Dereck Orr 
have been working around the clock and have been doing a great job.
  I am glad that the Senator from New Hampshire notes this for the 
Record. Too often we forget that we couldn't handle these bills without 
Scott Gudes, and Dereck Orr on our side of the aisle. I can tell you 
that.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers'

[[Page S8852]]

amendments be in order notwithstanding the fact that they amend 
language already amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 3284 through 3321, en bloc

  Mr. GREGG. I now send to the desk a series of amendments cleared by 
both managers on behalf of myself and Senator Hollings. I further ask 
they be considered and adopted en bloc and motion to reconsider these 
amendments be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and 
     Mr. Hollings, proposes amendments numbered 3284 through 3321, 
     en bloc.

  Mr. GREGG. I renew my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3284 through 3321) were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3284

                     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

       On page 2, line 24, insert ``forfeited'' after the first 
     comma.
       On page 45, line 17, strike ``13'' and insert ``286''.
       On page 5 of the Bill, on lines 8 and 9, strike the 
     following: ``National Consortium for First Responders'', and 
     insert the following: ``National Domestic Preparedness 
     Consortium''.
       On page 27 of the Bill, on line 10, after the words ``unit 
     of local government'', insert the words ``at the parish 
     level''.
       On page 29 of the Bill, on line 13 after ``Tribal Courts 
     Initiative'', insert the following:
       ``, including $400,000 for the establishment of a Sioux 
     Nation Tribal Supreme Court''
       On page 51 of the Bill, after line 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 121. Section 170102 of the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14072) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``or'';
       (2) in subsection (g)(3), by striking ``minimally 
     sufficient'' and inserting ``State sexual offender''; and
       (3) by amending subsection (1) to read as follows:
       ``(i) Penalty.--A person who is--
       ``(1) required to register under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) 
     of subsection (g) of this section and knowingly fails to 
     comply with this section;
       ``(2) required to register under a sexual offender 
     registration program in the person's State of residence and 
     knowingly fails to register in any other State in which the 
     person is employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student;
       ``(3) described in section 4042(c)(4) of title 18, United 
     States Code and knowingly fails to register in any State in 
     which the person resides, is employed, carries on a vocation, 
     or is a student following release from prison or sentencing 
     to probation; or
       ``(4) sentenced by a court martial for conduct in a 
     category specified by the Secretary of Defense under section 
     115(a)(8)(C) of title I of Public Law No. 105-119, and 
     knowingly fails to register in any State in which the person 
     resides, is employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student 
     following release from prison or sentencing to probation, 
     shall, in the case of a first offense under this subsection, 
     be imprisoned for not more than 1 year and, in the case of a 
     second or subsequent offense under this subsection, be 
     imprisoned for not more than 10 years.''.
       On page 51 of the Bill, after line 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 123. (a) In General.--Section 200108 of the Police 
     Corps Act (42 U.S.C. 14097) is amended by striking subsection 
     (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Training Sessions.--A participant in a State Police 
     Corps program shall attend up to 24 weeks, but no less than 
     16 weeks, of training at a residential training center. The 
     Director may approve training conducted in not more than 3 
     separate sessions.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 200108(c) of the Police 
     Corps Act (42 U.S.C. 14097(c)) is amended by striking ``16 
     weeks of''.
       (c) Reauthorization.--Section 200112 of the Police Corps 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 14101) is amended by striking ``$20,000'' and 
     all that follows before the period and inserting 
     ``$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $70,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2000, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $90,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2002''.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

       On page 66, line 5, strike the proviso ``Provided further, 
     That $587,992,000 shall be made available for the 
     Procurement, acquisition and construction account in fiscal 
     year 1999:'' and insert in lieu thereof ``Provided further, 
     That of the $10,500,000 available for the estuarine research 
     reserve system, $2,000,000 shall be made available for the 
     Office of response and restoration and $1,160,000 shall be 
     made available for Navigation services, mapping and charting: 
     Provided further, That of funds made available for the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service information collectin and 
     analyses, $400,000 shall be made available to continue 
     Atlantic Herring and Mackerel studies: Provided further, That 
     of the $8,500,000 provided for the interstate fisheries 
     commissions, $7,000,000 shall be provided to the Atlantic 
     States Marine Fisheries Commission for the Atlantic Coastal 
     Cooperative Fisheries Management Act, $750,000 shall be 
     provided for the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics 
     Program, and the remainder shall be provided to each of the 
     three interstate fisheries commissions (including the ASMFC): 
     Provided further, That within the Procurement, Acquisition 
     and Construction account that $3,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the National Estuarine Research Reserve 
     construction, and $5,000,000 shall be made available for 
     Great Bay land acquisition.''
       On page 72, line 15, after ``(3)(L)'', replace the brackets 
     with parentheses around the phrase ``as identified by the 
     Governor'' and on line 16, before the period add a quotation 
     mark.

                     TITLE V--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                     small business administration

       On page 116, line 17, change ``1998'' and ``1999'' to 
     ``2000''.
       On page 117, line 6, strike ``to this appropriation and 
     used for necessary expenses of the agency'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``to and merged with the appropriations for 
     salaries and expenses:''
       On page 117, line 12, strike ``20(n)(2)(B)'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``20(d)(1)(B)(ii)''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3285

   (Purpose: To prohibit the publication of identifying information 
           relating to a minor for criminal sexual purposes)

       On page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 121. INTERNET PREDATOR PREVENTION.

       (a) Prohibition and Penalties.--Chapter 110 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 2261. Publication of identifying information relating 
       to a minor for criminal sexual purposes

       ``(a) Definition of Identifying Information Relating to a 
     Minor.--In this section, the term `identifying information 
     relating to a minor' includes the name, address, telephone 
     number, social security number, or e-mail address of a minor.
       ``(b) Prohibition and Penalties.--Whoever, through the use 
     of any facility in or affecting interstate or foreign 
     commerce (including any interactive computer service) 
     publishes, or causes to be published, any identifying 
     information relating to a minor who has not attained the age 
     of 17 years, for the purpose of soliciting any person to 
     engage in any sexual activity for which the person can be 
     charged with criminal offense under Federal or State law, 
     shall be imprisoned not less than 1 and not more than 5 
     years, fined under this title, or both.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 110 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``2261. Publication of identifying information relating to a minor for 
              criminal sexual purposes.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3286

   (Purpose: To require Internet access providers to make available 
                      Internet screening software)

       On page 135, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 620. (a) Requirement.--Section 230 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Obligations of Internet Access Providers.--
       ``(1) In general.--An Internet access provider shall, at 
     the time of entering into an agreement with a customer for 
     the provision of Internet access services, offer such 
     customer (either for a fee or at no charge) screening 
     software that is designed to permit the customer to limit 
     access to material on the Internet that is harmful to minors.
       ``(2) Definitions.--As used in this subsection:
       ``(A) Internet access provider.--The term `Internet access 
     provider' means a person engaged in the business of providing 
     a computer and communications facility through which a 
     customer may obtain access to the Internet, but does not 
     include a common carrier to the extent that it provides only 
     telecommunications services.
       ``(B) Internet access services.--The term `Internet access 
     services' means the provision of computer and communications 
     services through which a customer using a computer and a 
     modem or other communications device may obtain access to the 
     Internet, but does not include telecommunications services 
     provided by a common carrier.''.
       ``(C) Screening software.--The term `screening software' 
     means software that is designed to permit a person to limit 
     access to material on the Internet that is harmful to 
     minors.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to agreements for the provision of Internet 
     access services entered into on or after the date that is 6 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment designed 
to give parents a tool to help protect their children from pornography 
and sexual predators on the Internet. According to Wired magazine, 
there are

[[Page S8853]]

currently some 28,000 web sites containing hard- and soft-core 
pornography. And that number is growing at an alarming rate, it is 
estimated that 50 pornographic sites are added to the Internet each 
day.
  Sadly, many of out children are, out of curiosity or by accident, 
exposed to such sites while surfing the web. They type in search terms 
as innocuous as ``toys''--only to find graphic images and language on 
their display terminal.
  Mr. President, the Internet is profoundly changing the way we learn 
and communicate with people. Today, our children have unprecedented 
access to educational material through the Internet. It provides 
children with vast opportunities to learn about art, culture and 
history--the possibilities are endless.
  However, this advanced technology also brings with it a dark side for 
our children. Many children who are browsing the net--often 
unaccompanied by an adult--come across material that is unsuitable for 
them, and is oftentimes sexually explicit.
  Mr. President, every parent worries about strangers approaching their 
children in their neighborhood or on the playground at school. And they 
teach their children how to avoid these strangers. But, today, these 
strangers are literally inside our homes. They are only a mouse click 
away from our children. In our libraries and bookstores, we store 
reading material that is harmful to minors in areas accessible only to 
adults. Yet, in cyberspace, these same materials are as accessible to a 
child as his or her favorite bedtime story.
  Pornography and predators are now reaching our children, via the 
Internet, in the privacy and safety of their own homes and classrooms. 
This kind of access to our children is alarming, and this invasion of 
our children's privacy and innocence is unconscionable.
  We, as a nation, have an obligation to ensure that surfing the web 
remains a safe and viable option for our children. We have a 
responsibility to make sure that they are able to learn and grow in an 
environment free of sexual predators and pornographic images. Clearly, 
there is no substitute for parental supervision. Yet, I think we can 
all agree that many parents know less about the Internet than their 
children. Parents are convinced of the Internet's educational value, 
but they feel anxious about their ability to supervise children while 
they use it.
  In my view, it is important that we encourage parents and children to 
use the Internet together. But clearly, it is difficult for any adult 
to monitor children online all of the time.
  Therefore, I believe we need to provide our parents with the tools to 
protect and guide our children. The amendment I offer today is a modest 
measure designed to provide one such tool. It would ensure that 
Internet access providers make screening software available to 
customers purchasing Internet access services.
  The amendment would allow customers to have the opportunity to 
obtain--either for a fee or no charge, as determined by the provider--
screening software that permits customers to limit access to material 
on the Internet that is harmful to minors. Like going to the pharmacy 
and being asked if you want a child-proof lid for a prescription 
medication, my bill would require that Internet access providers ask 
parents whether they would like to obtain screening software.
  It is not a guarantee that children using the Internet would be 
protected from pornography and predators. And it is not a substitute 
for parental supervision. But it can be an extension of parental 
supervision--a tool we put in their hands to help protect their kids--
much as we did when we voted to give parents the v-chip.
  I hope my colleagues will endorse this amendment, and I urge its 
adoption.


                           amendment no. 3287

 (Purpose: To move Schuylkill County, PA from the Eastern District to 
                  the Middle District of Pennsylvania)

     SEC.   . TRANSFER OF COUNTY.

       (a) Section 118 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Philadelphia, and 
     Schuylkill'' and inserting ``and Philadelphia''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Schuylkill,'' after 
     ``Potter,''.
       (b) Effective Date.
       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Pending cases not affected.--This section and the 
     amendments made by this section shall not affect any action 
     commenced before the effective date of this section and 
     pending on such date in the United States District Court for 
     the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
       (3) Juries not affected.--This section and the amendments 
     made by this section shall not affect the composition, or 
     preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, 
     impaneled, or actually serving on the effective date of this 
     section.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3288

  (Purpose: To require a report regarding the analysis of the United 
 States Trade Representative with respect to any subsidies provided by 
        the Government of the Republic of Korea to Hanbo Steel)

       At the appropriate place in title VI, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. ____. REPORT ON KOREAN STEEL SUBSIDIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the United States Trade Representative 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Trade Representative'') 
     shall report to Congress on the Trade Representative's 
     analysis regarding--
       (1) whether the Korean Government provided subsidies to 
     Hanbo Steel;
       (2) whether such subsidies had an adverse effect on United 
     States companies;
       (3) the status of the Trade Representative's contacts with 
     the Korean Government with respect to industry concerns 
     regarding Hanbo Steel and efforts to eliminate subsidies; and
       (4) the status of the Trade Representative's contacts with 
     other Asian trading partners regarding the adverse effect of 
     Korean steel subsidies on such trading partners.
       (b) Status of Investigation.--The report described in 
     subsection (a) shall also include information on the status 
     of any investigations initiated as a result of press reports 
     that the Korean Government ordered Pohang Iron and Steel 
     Company, in which the Government owns a controlling interest, 
     to sell steel in Korea at a price that is 30 percent lower 
     than the international market prices.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the continued 
problem of trade-distorting subsidies given by the Korean Government to 
its domestic steel industry. Unfair trade practices by the Korean 
Government are causing the U.S. steel industry--including one of West 
Virginia's largest employers, Weirton Steel Corporation--to lose 
millions of dollars. These losses impact U.S. communities, which must 
carry the burden of Korea's unfair practices by contending with a lower 
tax and job base.
  I joined my colleagues in the Senate Steel Caucus in signing letters 
to U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Charlene Barshefsky and U.S. 
Department of Commerce Secretary William Daley regarding violations by 
the South Korean Government of the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
Subsidy Code. Regrettably, the responses to those letters were not 
satisfactory.
  My amendment would simply require the United States Trade 
Representative to report on Korean steel subsidies. Accurate 
information on unfair trade practices is vital to the future of the 
U.S. steel industry and its workers. This amendment would send the 
Korean Government a clear message that we expect our trading partners 
to adhere to fair trading practices, but, more importantly, it would 
send a message to American workers that this Congress is prepared to 
defend our own commercial interests and take action against the Korean 
Government's infringement upon U.S. rights under the WTO agreement.
  U.S. imports of steel from South Korea have increased by nearly 
forty-five percent during the first four months of 1998. These surging 
Korean steel imports are possible due to the Korean government's 
continued use of illegal subsidies--subsidies that unfairly 
disadvantage the U.S. steel industry. The negative impact of these 
Korean subsidies cannot be ignored. Illegal foreign steel sales are 
severely undermining the economic stability in regions throughout our 
country that rely upon steel for jobs--literally taking money out of 
the pockets of these workers as well as their neighbors, who depend 
upon this industry for their livelihood.
  For the U.S. steelworkers in the Upper Ohio Valley and throughout our 
nation, we must continue to pursue efforts to end the entry of foreign 
products into this country that unfairly place our domestic industries 
at risk. We must restore confidence in our trade laws.
  I appreciate Members' support of this initiative.

[[Page S8854]]

                           amendment no. 3289

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the enforcement in fiscal 
year 1999 of certain regulations regarding the Global Maritime Distress 
   and Safety System (GMDSS) with respects to United States fishing 
                           industry vessels)

       On page 135, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 620. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal 
     year 1999 by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or 
     expended for purposes of enforcing any rule or regulation 
     requiring the installation or operation aboard United States 
     fishing industry vessels of the Global Maritime Distress and 
     Safety System (GDDSS).

               global maritime distress and safety system

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment will delay for one year 
the application of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System, 
abbreviated as GMDSS, to fishing industry vessels. The purpose of the 
delay is to allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the time 
to address a number of serious concerns that have recently come to 
light involving GMDSS for fishing industry vessels. Also Mr. President, 
let me make clear that the delay will not affect any other type of 
vessel.
  GMDSS is a system created by the International Maritime Organization 
(IMO) under the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). It was 
intended to improve safety for large cargo and passenger vessels on 
international voyages. It is scheduled to go into effect on February 1 
of next year. There is no doubt that GMDSS will indeed improve safety 
for these types of vessels.
  Fishing vessels are very specifically not covered by SOLAS, but the 
FCC regulation requiring GMDSS for international passenger and cargo 
vessels is also being applied to large domestic fishing industry 
vessels anyway.
  Because these types of vessels operate very differently, there are 
serious questions as to whether the system should be applied in the 
same way.
  The most important of the questions that has been raised for the 
fishing industry involves the safety and well-being not of the fishing 
vessels required to carry GMDSS equipment, but of the smaller vessels 
that work around them.
  One of the things that makes GMDSS attractive to large vessels on 
international voyages is that it is automated, using a feature called 
Digital Selective Calling (DSC). Because of this, when the large 
vessels switch to GMDSS on February 1, they will no longer be required 
to maintain a continuous watch on the two emergency frequencies used 
under the current system.
  In the United States, the watchstanding requirement has been extended 
to the year 2005 for VHF Channel 16, but will cease on February 1 for 
2182 kilohertz. These are the two frequencies used by small vessels, 
including the small fishing vessels that operate in and around the 
larger vessels that will be required to convert to GMDSS.
  When a fishing vessel is in distress, the vessels closest to it and 
in the best position to render aid are other fishing vessels working in 
the same area.
  But, Mr. President, what will happen when the small vessel sends out 
a distress call, only to find that the larger and better-equipped 
fishing vessels around it are no longer listening?
  This is--obviously, and with very good reason--a major concern. Under 
the theory of GMDSS, contact with other vessels is to be replaced by 
contact with a shore station. That's all well and good on an 
international voyage, where it may eliminate confusion and speed up 
response. But for fishing vessels, it may very well slow response 
time--and believe me, Mr. President, in the frigid waters of the Bering 
Sea in the winter, every second counts toward life--or toward death. 
Because of this, there is a very real danger that shifting the largest 
and most capable vessels of the fleet to GMDSS may actually degrade 
safety for smaller, but far more numerous vessels operating in the same 
areas.
  In fact, although the GMDSS system is supposed to replace ship-to-
ship emergency communications with a unified ship-to-shore system 
maintained by the Coast guard, the fact is that the Coast Guard itself 
is not ready to implement it fully.
  With the system scheduled to go into effect in just a few months, 
there are still major shore-based components that have not yet been 
installed. In Alaska, for example, the Coast Guard is only this summer 
starting the installation of medium-frequency receivers. And throughout 
the country, installation of VHF receivers has been delayed 
indefinitely--it is ``on hold.'' According to the Coast Guard's own 
task force on GMDSS, the VHF system will probably not be in place 
before 2003 at the earliest.
  The fact that GMDSS was not designed for the fishing fleet is an 
issue itself. Most every mariner of any sort is familiar with SOLAS, 
and knows that it does not apply to fishing vessels. As a result, when 
the FCC published the proposed GMDSS rule in 1990, and when it made the 
rule final in 1992, the fishing industry was not made aware that it 
would be applied to fishing industry vessels, which are generally 
treated as a separate class of vessels under U.S. law.
  Indeed, when the proposed GMDSS regulation was printed in the Federal 
Register in 1990, it specified that fishing vessels would not be 
included: ``Small ships, such as private fishing vessels and 
recreational yachts, are not affected by the proposed changes.'' This 
same statement is still being repeated, in an informational document 
about GMDSS that is currently offered on the FCC's Internet site.
  Given this confusion, it is no wonder that the fishing industry's 
concerns did not surface sooner; most of the industry was unaware of 
the need to comment. This alone is a huge flaw in the way the 
rulemaking was conducted, but one that can be corrected given a little 
more time to explore and address the fishing industry's concerns.
  Mr. President, the affected fishing industry vessels already carry 
all but one feature of the GMDSS system. They have VHF radios and 
single-side-band radios, EPIRBS, radars, radar transponders and hand-
held VHF radios for their life rafts, and so forth. Each vessel already 
carries--at a guess--$20,000 to $30,000 worth of sophisticated 
communications equipment. The only thing they are lacking is the 
Digital Selective Calling (DSC) feature.
  In a recent meeting with the Coast Guard and the FCC, we learned that 
there is no reason DSC could not be added to the existing equipment for 
a very reasonable cost--perhaps $5,000. However, the industry has 
indicated that electronics vendors have so far either declined to sell 
DSC as a separate component, or if they do, to offer a component 
warranty on it. Instead, they are insisting that the fishing industry 
purchase large consoles where all of the GMDSS equipment is pre-
installed--at a cost of $50,000 to $60,000 dollars each. Because of the 
confined nature of the wheelhouse on the average vessel, significant 
structural changes may have to be made to fit the console in place, and 
of course, the existing $30,000 of equipment would have to be scrapped. 
That means, Mr. President, that the cost of outfitting these vessels 
may reach as much as $100,000--all to get a $5,000 piece of equipment 
on board. That, Mr. President, is why people get upset at their 
government. That, Mr. President, is just plain wrong.
  These are just a few of the very serious issues that justify a delay 
for fishing industry vessels so that the rule can be re-examined and 
improved with better input from the industry. No one wants to see 
safety degraded in any way--including by mandating ``improvements'' 
that may be no such thing.
  It may be that GMDSS is the way to go for fishing industry vessels as 
well as the large international cargo vessels and passenger liners it 
was designed for. If so, it should be adopted, and I'm sure it will be. 
But if not, we must take the time to listen first.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Alaska yield for a question?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am very happy to yield for a question 
from the distinguished manager.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding that this amendment will delay for 
one year the application of the GMDSS requirements for fishing industry 
vessels, but not other types of vessels. Is that the understanding of 
the Senator from Alaska?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the manager is quite correct. This 
amendment will apply only to fishing industry vessels such as catcher-
boats,

[[Page S8855]]

catcher-processors, mothership processors and fish tender vessels. 
Other types of vessels to which the rule applies, such as cargo and 
passenger ships, will not be affected.
  Mr. GREGG. Is it the Senator's intention that the federal agencies 
involved would then use this period of time to further examine the 
issue of applying GMDSS requirements to the fishing industry?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Once again, Mr. President, the distinguished manager 
is correct. Based on discussions with the two agencies directly 
involved in this matter, and with the fishing industry, it is evident 
that the industry has legitimate concerns and questions that have not 
been answered. The moratorium will allow the agencies the time to 
revisit the issue in the detail that it deserves. I hope they will take 
the opportunity either to reopen the rulemaking with respect to fishing 
industry vessels or to open a new rulemaking that specifically deals 
with such vessels, so that the unique characteristics of the fishing 
industry are considered.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator. In my view this is a very legitimate 
goal and I join the Senator from Alaska in expressing the hope that the 
agencies will revisit this matter.

                           AMENDMENT NO. 3290

(Purpose: To provide for the payment of special masters, and for other 
                               purposes)

       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 
     Condition.--''; 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.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3291

   (Purpose: To provide for the waiver of fees for the processing of 
certain visas for certain Mexico citizens and to require the continuing 
     processing of applications for visas in certain Mexico cities)

       On page 100, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       Sec. 407. (a) Waiver of Fees for Certain Visas.--
       (1) Requirement.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary of State and 
     the Attorney General shall waive the fee for the processing 
     of any application for the issuance of a machine readable 
     combined border crossing card and nonimmigrant visa under 
     section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     in the case of any alien under 15 years of age where the 
     application for the machine readable combined border crossing 
     card and nonimmigrant visa is made in Mexico by a citizen of 
     Mexico who has at least one parent or guardian who has a visa 
     under such section or is applying for a machine readable 
     combined border crossing card and nonimmigrant visa under 
     such section as well.
       (B) Delayed commencement.--The Secretary of State and the 
     Attorney General may not commence implementation of the 
     requirement in subparagraph (A) until the later of--
       (i) the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act; or
       (ii) the date on which the Secretary sets the amount of the 
     fee or surcharge in accordance with paragraph (3).
       (2) Period of validity of visas.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if 
     the fee for a machine readable combined border crossing card 
     and nonimmigrant visa issued under section 101(a)(15)(B) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act has been waived under 
     paragraph (1) for a child under 15 years of age, the machine 
     readable combined border crossing card and nonimmigrant visa 
     shall be issued to expire on the earlier of--
       (i) the date on which the child attains the age of 15; or
       (ii) ten years after its date of issue.
       (B) Exception.--At the request of the parent or guardian of 
     any alien under 15 years of age otherwise covered by 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary of State and the Attorney 
     General may charge a fee for the processing of an application 
     for the issuance of a machine readable combined border 
     crossing card and nonimmigrant visa under section 
     101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provided 
     that the machine readable combined border crossing card and 
     nonimmigrant visa is issued to expire as of the same date as 
     is usually provided for visas issued under that section.
       (3) Recoupment of costs resulting from waiver.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     State shall set the amount of the fee or surcharge authorized 
     pursuant to section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
     103-236; 8 U.S.C. 1351 note) for the processing of machine 
     readable combined border crossing cards and nonimmigrant 
     visas at a level that will ensure the full recovery by the 
     Department of State of the costs of processing all such 
     combined border crossing cards and nonimmigrant visas, 
     including the costs of processing such combined border 
     crossing cards and nonimmigrant visas for which the fee is 
     waived pursuant to this subsection.
       (b) Processing in Mexican Border Cities.--The Secretary of 
     State shall continue, until at least October 1, 2003, or 
     until all border crossing identification cards in circulation 
     have otherwise been required to be replaced under section 
     104(b)(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (as added by section 116(b)(2) of 
     this Act), to process applications for visas under section 
     101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at the 
     following cities in Mexico located near the international 
     border with the United States: Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, Ciudad 
     Acuna, Piedras Negras, Agua Prieta, and Reynosa.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3292

 (Purpose: To require a study and report on the adequacy of processing 
          nonimmigrant visas by United States consular posts)

       On page 100, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       Sec. 407. (a) The purpose of this section is to protect the 
     national security interests of the United States while 
     studying the appropriate level of resources to improve the 
     issuance of visas to legitimate foreign travelers.
       (b) Congress recognizes the importance of maintaining 
     quality service by consular officers in the processing of 
     applications for nonimmigrant visas and finds that this 
     requirement should be reflected in any timeliness standards 
     or other regulations governing the issuance of visas.
       (c) The Secretary of State shall conduct a study to 
     determine, with respect to the processing of nonimmigrant 
     visas within the Department of State--
       (1) the adequacy of staffing at United States consular 
     posts, particularly during peak travel periods;
       (2) the adequacy of service to international tourism;
       (3) the adequacy of computer and technical support to 
     consular posts; and
       (4) the appropriate standard to determine whether a country 
     qualifies as a pilot program country under the visa waiver 
     pilot program in section 217 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187).
       (d)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to 
     Congress setting forth--
       (A) the results of the study conducted under subsection 
     (c); and
       (B) the steps the Secretary has taken to implement 
     timeliness standards.
       (2) Beginning one year after the date of submission of the 
     report required by paragraph (1), and annually thereafter, 
     the Secretary of State shall submit a report to Congress 
     describing the implementation of timeliness standards during 
     the preceding year.
       (e) In this section--
       (1) the term ``nonimmigrant visas'' means visas issued to 
     aliens described in section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)); and
       (2) the term ``timeliness standards'' means standards 
     governing the timely processing of applications for 
     nonimmigrant visas at United States consular posts.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am introducing an amendment to the 
Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill regarding the Consular 
Service and the issuing of tourist visas.
  I strongly endorse tight immigration controls and strict visa 
policies to ensure that illegal aliens and criminal activity do not 
cross our nation's borders.
  At the same time, we must recognize the economic importance of 
tourism in

[[Page S8856]]

this country and ensure that legitimate foreign travelers are not 
penalized by an overwhelmed consular service.
  To that end, I am asking the State Department to report to Congress 
on a regular basis the status of visa backlogs at our embassies 
worldwide and to conduct a study on whether the appropriate resources 
are being dedicated to the consular service.
  Tourism is a $473 billion dollar business in the United States and 
our country's second largest employer, behind the health care industry.
  We bring in more tourists to the U.S. than we send overseas, creating 
a $26 billion dollar trade surplus, equal in size to the car and auto 
parts trade deficit with Japan.
  By the year 2007, less than ten years away, the World Tourism 
Organization predicts the U.S. tourism market will double to nearly 
$885 billion dollars.
  We must make certain our consular services and visa procedures are 
streamlined, improved, and protective of national security interests in 
order to capitalize on the growing international tourism market.
  I hope you can support me in requiring the State Department to study 
consular resources and report back on what improvements or resources 
are needed to make it the best in the world, a secure system that can 
help promote U.S. as an international destination.


                           amendment no. 3293

       On page 86, line 8, insert the following after the colon: 
     ``Provided further, That not to exceed $2,400,000 shall only 
     be available to establish an international center for 
     response to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons;''.
       At the end to title VII, insert the following:

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

              Contributions to International Organizations


                              (Rescission)

       Of the total amount of appropriations provided in Acts 
     enacted before this Act for the Interparliamentary Union, 
     $400,000 is rescinded.


                           amendment no. 3294

    (Purpose: Relating to arrearage payments to the United Nations)

  (The text of the amendment (No. 3294) is printed in today's Record 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3295

(Purpose: To provide for reviews of criminal records of applicants for 
    employment in nursing facilities and home health care agencies)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:


  CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT IN NURSING 
                FACILITIES AND HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCIES

       Sec. ____. (a) Authority to Conduct Background Checks.--
       (1) In General.--A nursing facility or home health care 
     agency may submit a request to the Attorney General to 
     conduct a search and exchange of records described in 
     subsection (b) regarding an applicant for employment if the 
     employment position is involved in direct patient care.
       (2) Submission of requests.--A nursing facility or home 
     health care agency requesting a search and exchange of 
     records under this section shall submit to the Attorney 
     General a copy of an employment applicant's fingerprints, a 
     statement signed by the applicant authorizing the nursing 
     facility or home health care agency to request the search and 
     exchange of records, and any other identification information 
     not more than 7 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
     public holidays under section 6103(a) of title 5, United 
     States Code) after acquiring the fingerprints, signed 
     statement, and information.
       (b) Search and Exchange of Records.--Pursuant to any 
     submission that complies with the requirements of subsection 
     (a), the Attorney General shall search the records of the 
     Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation for any criminal history records 
     corresponding to the fingerprints or other identification 
     information submitted. The Attorney General shall provide any 
     corresponding information resulting from the search to the 
     appropriate State or local governmental agency authorized to 
     receive such information.
       (c) Use of Information.--Information regarding an applicant 
     for employment in a nursing facility or home health care 
     agency obtained pursuant to this section may be used only by 
     the facility or agency requesting the information and only 
     for the purpose of determining the suitability of the 
     applicant for employment by the facility or agency in a 
     position involved in direct patient care.
       (d) Fees.--The Attorney General may charge a reasonable 
     fee, not to exceed $50 per request, to any nursing facility 
     or home health care agency requesting a search and exchange 
     of records pursuant to this section to cover the cost of 
     conducting the search and providing the records.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the number of requests for searches and 
     exchanges of records made under this section by nursing 
     facilities and home health care agencies and the disposition 
     of such requests.
       (f) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever knowingly uses any 
     information obtained pursuant to this section for a purpose 
     other than as authorized under subsection (c) shall be fined 
     in accordance with title 18, United States Code, imprisoned 
     for not more than 2 years, or both.
       (g) Immunity From Liability.--A nursing facility or home 
     health care agency that, in denying employment for an 
     applicant, reasonably relies upon information provided by the 
     Attorney General pursuant to this section shall not be liable 
     in any action brought by the applicant based on the 
     employment determination resulting from the incompleteness or 
     inaccuracy of the information.
       (h) Regulations.--The Attorney General may promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this section, 
     including regulations regarding the security, 
     confidentiality, accuracy, use, destruction, and 
     dissemination of information, audits and recordkeeping, the 
     imposition of fees necessary for the recovery of costs, and 
     any necessary modifications to the definitions contained in 
     subsection (i).
       (i) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Home health care agency.--The term ``home health care 
     agency'' means an agency that provides home health care or 
     personal care services on a visiting basis in a place of 
     residence.
       (2) Nursing facility.--The term ``nursing facility'' means 
     a facility or institution (or a distinct part of an 
     institution) that is primarily engaged in providing to 
     residents of the facility or institution nursing care, 
     including skilled nursing care, and related services for 
     individuals who require medical or nursing care.
       (j) Applicability.--This section shall apply without fiscal 
     year limitation.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to the 
managers for including an amendment offered by myself and Senator Harry 
Reid. The managers have worked hard to reach consensus on this 
legislation, and I commend them for their efforts.
  I believe that this amendment will take another important step toward 
protecting our nation's elderly and disabled patients from abuse and 
neglect. The vast majority of employees in nursing homes and home 
health agencies work hard under stressful conditions to provide the 
highest quality care. However, there has been too many instances where 
people with criminal backgrounds and abuse histories have gained 
employment in long-term care facilities and subsequently abused 
patients in their care. This is inexcusable; Congress should take every 
step necessary to make sure that these facilities have the tools they 
need to screen potential employees.
  During consideration of the Senate Budget Resolution, the Senate 
unanimously adopted my Sense of the Senate amendment, which expressed 
strong support for the establishment of a national background check 
system to weed out known abusers and people with violent criminal 
backgrounds. The amendment that is included in the manager's package 
today takes this one step further. This amendment authorizes nursing 
facilities and home health care agencies to utilize the FBI fingerprint 
background check system to screen potential employees. It is important 
to note that this amendment does not mandate that these facilities 
conduct the checks. It simply allows them to access the FBI system if 
they choose to do so.
  Many States, nursing facilities and home care agencies have already 
taken steps to better screen their long-term care employees. This 
amendment will give them another tool to use in their efforts to screen 
out known abusers. However, our job does not end here. I still believe 
that Congress must act to establish a national registry that will 
coordinate abuse information between States, and require that all long-
term care facilities utilize both the registry and the FBI system. I 
have been working for passage of such legislation, and I am pleased 
that the President has recently endorsed my idea as well. I look 
forward to working with the President and all of my colleagues in the 
future on this important effort.
  It is vital that we continue to take steps to protect our most 
vulnerable citizens from abuse, neglect and mistreatment, especially at 
the hands of those who are charged with their care. I believe that this 
amendment is another step in that direction. Again, I

[[Page S8857]]

thank the managers for working with me in this effort. I yield the 
floor.


                           amendment no. 3296

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for foreign travel or foreign 
 communications by officers and employees of the Antitrust Division of 
                       the Department of Justice)

       On page 51, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 121. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice under this Act may be used for any 
     expense relating to, or as reimbursement for any expense 
     incurred in connection with, any foreign travel by an officer 
     or employee of the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
     Justice, if that foreign travel is for the purpose, in whole 
     or in part, of soliciting or otherwise encouraging any 
     antitrust action by a foreign country against a United States 
     company that is a defendant in any antitrust action pending 
     in the United States in which the United States is a 
     plaintiff. Provided, however, That this section shall not: 
     (1) limit the ability of the Department to investigate 
     potential violations of United States antitrust laws; or (2) 
     prohibit assistance authorized pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sections 
     6201-6212, or pursuant to a ratified treaty between the 
     United States and a foreign government, or other 
     international agreement to which the United States is a 
     party.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Justice Department is out of control, 
Mr. President. Evidence appears to be mounting that officials at the 
Department's Antitrust Division have been traveling around the world 
urging foreign governments to join them in their witch hunt against 
Microsoft.
  As far as this Senator is concerned, such action should be 
prohibited.
  It seems the Administration is reaching out a helping hand to U.S. 
competitors overseas. While foreign governments work hard to protect 
their most important industries, our Justice Department is assisting 
those foreign governments in their efforts to keep one of America's 
most vibrant, innovative, and successful companies out of their 
markets.
  In a letter sent last week to Attorney General Janet Reno, my 
colleagues Senators Sessions, Abraham, and Kyl raised some provocative 
questions about the activities of Justice Department officials 
overseas. They have learned that Joel Klein and his staff at the 
Department's Antitrust Division are busily recruiting their foreign 
counterparts in their war against Microsoft.
  First and foremost, Mr. President, I'd like to know what Justice 
Department officials, whose work focuses exclusively on issues here at 
home, are doing traveling overseas at the taxpayers' expense. According 
to the letter, in the last six months, Joel Klein has traveled to 
Japan, Russell Pittman, Chief of the Competition Policy Section of the 
Antitrust Division has visited Brazil, Dan Rubinfeld, chief economist 
for the Antitrust Division has gone to Israel, and Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General Douglas Melamed spent a week in Paris in June.
  At a time when Joel Klein has been complaining that his division does 
not have enough money or people to do its job effectively, he and his 
staff are traveling around the world on the Justice Department's dime. 
And they are using those foreign visits as a bully pulpit to tout the 
merits of their case against Microsoft and encouraging foreign 
governments to join in the attack.
  This kind of activity is reprehensible. It is even more egregious 
when one notes that it is being financed by the American people--many 
of whom may wind up losing their jobs and their livelihood if Joel 
Klein is successful.
  Here is the evidence my colleagues have compiled to date:
  Joel Klein visited Japan to meet with the Japanese Fair Trade 
Commission last December. A month later, the Trade Commission raided 
Microsoft's Tokyo offices, confiscating thousands of company documents.
  When Russell Pittman went to Brazil in May, he spoke publicly to 
senior Brazilian government officials responsible for antitrust 
enforcement in that country, outlining the Justice Department's case 
against Microsoft in detail. Nine days later, The Brazilian government 
announced its intention to begin legal proceedings against the company.
  A quote from Mr. Pittman at this event is particularly troubling, 
and, I might add, somewhat ironic. He accused Microsoft of behaving 
``like an arrogant monopolist, even acting arrogantly in its relations 
with the antitrust authorities, it will receive from these agencies 
what it deserves.'' Who is calling whom arrogant? A government 
bureaucrat on a taxpayer funded jaunt to Brazil? If the situation were 
not so serious, I would find this quote to be quite amusing, Mr. 
President.
  In Israel in May, Dan Rubinfeld gave a public speech on the 
Department's case against Microsoft to an audience that included 
Israeli officials responsible for antitrust enforcement. He later met 
privately along with his sidekicks from the Federal Trade Commission 
with a group of Israeli government officials to outline the DOJ's 
complaint against Microsoft.
  Not surprisingly, the Israeli government is now in discussions with 
Microsoft concerning its business practices in that country.
  And finally, on June 8th, Douglas Melamed briefed the OECD's 
Competition Law and Policy Committee in Paris on the strengths of the 
Department's case against Microsoft. The OECD Committee includes 
officials from Europe, Japan, Canada, and Brazil.
  I applaud Senators Sessions, Abraham, and Kyl for bringing this issue 
to light, Mr. President. It is just one in a series of steps by the 
Administration to tie the hands of successful U.S. companies.
  Thousands of jobs in my home state of Washington are being put on the 
line by a contemptuous group of bureaucrats over at the Justice 
Department.
  That is why I have decided to offer an amendment today to prohibit 
the Justice Department from soliciting or encouraging foreign 
governments to engage in antitrust against U.S. companies defending 
themselves against antitrust suits filed by the U.S. government here at 
home. My amendment is narrow in scope. It was carefully drafted to 
ensure that it is not overreaching.
  It will simply ensure that Joel Klein and his staff at the Antitrust 
Division do not travel abroad at the expense of U.S. taxpayers for the 
purpose of encouraging foreign governments to attack successful U.S. 
businesses.
  I assure my colleagues that I am very disappointed that this 
amendment is necessary at all. That U.S. government officials in this 
Administration are engaged in practices that serve no other purpose 
than to harm U.S. companies, their employees, their families of their 
employees, and the small businesses whose livelihoods depend on the 
success of those companies is truly disheartening.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning the actions of 
Antitrust Division officials and to pass this important amendment 
today. Attorney General Reno and Assistant Attorney General Klein need 
to know that their actions will not go unnoticed and that they cannot 
continue down their current path of denouncing U.S. businesses 
overseas.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, at the outset, let me say that I don't 
support the Department of Justice divulging confidential information to 
foreign governments in an attempt to encourage them, in any way, to 
take or threaten legal action against any U.S. company. I don't think 
the Department has done that. They assure me that they have not done 
that.
  I am aware of the letter that was sent to the Department inquiring 
whether the Department has encouraged any foreign antitrust authority 
to take action against Microsoft. I await the Department's formal 
response to the letter sent by my colleagues. If--and I emphasize if--
the Department of Justice was encouraging foreign countries to bring a 
cause of action against Microsoft--or any other American company--I 
would do all I can to put a stop to it. The Department of Justice has a 
responsibility to enforce U.S. antitrust laws--not Japan's, Brazil's or 
the European Union's. But having said that, the Department assures me 
they have done no such thing.
  I have to say, though, that, if Microsoft's charges prove groundless, 
one could reasonably conclude that this appears to be an assault, 
albeit a faint one, by Microsoft, on the Department of Justice's 
ongoing efforts to investigate potential violations of U.S. antitrust 
laws. When I first heard about this allegation, I was surprised that 
this is the best ``offensive'' more that their team of lobbyists and 
Washington lawyers could come up with. I was expecting a much more 
innovative strategy, given the reported offensive

[[Page S8858]]

Microsoft has threatened to launch against the Department of Justice. 
As I said before, I too oppose efforts by our government to encourage 
or solicit any foreign government to take hostile actions against a 
U.S. company.
  However, I had a concern that any such amendment not hinder the 
ability of the Antitrust Division to investigate violations of our--
United States'--antitrust laws. And also it does not prohibit mutual 
assistance that the Department and its foreign counterparts provide to 
each other under a ratified treaty or as authorized by the 
International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Gorton and his staff for his 
cooperation and willingness to work with me and ensure that the 
amendment does not have any such adverse impact. With this modification 
I am happy to lend my support to this amendment.
  The International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act passed the 
Senate unanimously in 1994. Let me also say that my friend and 
colleague, Senator Gorton, did not object to it then. This statute 
provides the important authority for the Attorney General when a mutual 
assistance agreement is in place, to cooperate with foreign agencies in 
assisting each other's efforts to prevent illegal antitrust activities. 
Given the increasingly international scope of the antitrust laws, it is 
crucial that the enforcement agencies have sufficient legal authority 
and the necessary tools to obtain information located abroad that would 
help them protect American consumers and businesses from antitrust 
abuses.
  Finally, I again want to thank Senator Gorton for his cooperation and 
willingness to work with me and I am happy that we were able to work 
out our concerns with this amendment.


                           amendment no. 3297

  (Purpose: to exempt orphans adopted by United States citizens from 
                          grounds of removal)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.     . EXCEPTION TO GROUNDS OF REMOVAL.

       Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) This section shall not apply to any alien who was 
     issued a visa or otherwise acquired the status of an alien 
     lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) as an orphan 
     described in section 101(b)(1)(F)'', unless that alien has 
     knowingly declined U.S. citizenship.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3298

 (Purpose: To prevent disclosure of personal and financial information 
   of corrections officers in certain civil actions until a verdict 
                 regarding liability has been rendered)

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

     SEC. 1____. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
                   OF CORRECTIONS OFFICERS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any action 
     brought by a prisoner under section 1979 of the Revised 
     Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) against a Federal, State, or local 
     jail, prison, or correctional facility, or any employee or 
     former employee thereof, arising out of the incarceration of 
     that prisoner--
       (1) the financial records of a person employed or formerly 
     employed by the Federal, State, or local jail, prison, or 
     correctional facility, shall not be subject to disclosure 
     without the written consent of that person or pursuant to a 
     court order, unless a verdict of liability has been entered 
     against that person; and
       (2) the home address, home phone number, social security 
     number, identity of family members, personal tax returns, and 
     personal banking information of a person described in 
     paragraph (1), and any other records or information of a 
     similar nature relating to that person, shall not be subject 
     to disclosure without the written consent of that person, or 
     pursuant to a court order.


                           amendment no. 3299

 (Purpose: To allow continued helicopter procurement by Border Patrol)

       In the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``Provided further, That the Border Patrol is authorized to 
     continue helicopter procurement while developing a report on 
     the cost and capabilities of a mixed fleet of manned and 
     unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters, and fixed-winged 
     aircraft.''


                           amendment no. 3300

(Purpose: To extend temporary protected status for certain nationals of 
                                Liberia)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

     SEC.   . EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR CERTAIN 
                   NATIONALS OF LIBERIA.

       (a) Continuation of Status.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any alien described in subsection (b) who, 
     as of the date of enactment of this Act, is registered for 
     temporary protected status in the United States under section 
     244(c)(1)(A)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(A)(iv)), or any predecessor law, order, or 
     regulation, shall be entitled to maintain that status through 
     September 30, 1999.
       (b) Covered Aliens.--An alien referred to in subsection (a) 
     is a national of Liberia or an alien who has no nationality 
     and who last habitually resided in Liberia.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues for 
including an extension of Temporary Protected Status for Liberians 
until September 30, 1999 in the Fiscal Year 1999 Commerce, Justice, 
State Appropriations bill.
  The histories of Liberia and the United States have been intertwined 
since 1847 when our nation's founding fathers helped freed American 
slaves found the sovereign state of Liberia. The first Liberians 
adopted the U.S. Constitution as a model and named the capital of the 
new country Monrovia, after President James Madison. Diplomatic, 
military and trade relations flourished between the two countries until 
the late 1980's.
  Then, in December 1989, Liberia was engulfed by a civil war that 
would last for seven years and continue to boil below the surface. Over 
150,000 people died and more than one-half of the population fled the 
country or was internally displaced. During the conflict, food 
production was halted and the country's infrastructure was destroyed.
  Several thousand Liberians who were forced from their homes because 
of the civil war sought refuge in the United States. In 1991, the 
Attorney General determined that Liberia was experiencing an ongoing 
armed conflict which prevented Liberian nationals from safely returning 
home. She granted Liberians who were present in the United States on 
March 27, 1991 temporary protected status (TPS), which provides 
temporary relief from deportation. Because the conflict in Liberia 
continued to rage, the Attorney General extended TPS each year for the 
next six years. Furthermore, conditions in Liberia deteriorated to such 
an extent in 1996, that the Attorney General ``redesignated'' TPS for 
Liberians who arrived after March 27, 1991 but were living in the 
United States on June 1, 1996. Never before in history had the Attorney 
General been compelled to redesignate a state for TPS.
  Recently, however, the Attorney General declared that TPS would end 
for all Liberians on September 28, 1998. It is true that on July 19, 
1997, Liberians elected former warlord Charles Taylor president and 300 
international observers deemed the election free and fair. It is also 
true that this new government has pledged to rebuild the economy and 
reconcile the ethnic factions.
  However, there are signs which indicate that Liberia is not as safe 
and stable as many would like to believe. In early December 1997, a 
prominent opposition leader was assassinated. Furthermore, a newspaper 
and two radio stations were temporarily shut down by the government.
  A pastor of a church in my home state of Rhode Island had a 
conversation just yesterday with an individual who just returned from 
Liberia who stated that people in Liberia are afraid to criticize the 
government in any way. The secret police sweep neighborhoods at night, 
people disappear and bodies mingle with garbage under a bridge in 
Monrovia.
  I would also like to relay the comments of Bishop Arthur Kulah to my 
colleagues who may wish to know why TPS is still needed. Bishop Kulah 
is a United Methodist leader who lost his parents and two brothers in 
the civil war. He recently spoke with Liberians living in Rhode Island 
and when they asked if it would be safe to return when TPS was 
terminated, he replied, ``People who have been fighting for ten years 
will not suddenly change. It may be quiet and then flare up overnight. 
The disarmament was not complete. People still have guns.''
  This weekend the Liberian community in Rhode Island will celebrate 
the 151st anniversary of Liberia's independence. They will celebrate 
the history and culture of their country and look forward to the day 
when they can safely go home. But that time is not now, Mr. President. 
They came to this country seeking peace and security. We have an 
obligation to offer them refuge until it is truly safe to go back.

[[Page S8859]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 3301

(Purpose: To provide for the adjustment of status of certain asylees in 
                                 Guam)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN ASYLEES IN GUAM.

       (a) Adjustment of Status
       (1) Exemption from numerical limitations.--The numerical 
     limitation set forth in section 209(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1159(b)) shall not apply to any 
     alien described in subsection (b).
       (2) Limitation on fees.--
       (A) In general.--Any alien described in subsection (b) who 
     applies for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence under section 209(b) of that 
     Act shall not be required to pay any fee for employment 
     authorization or for adjustment of status in excess of the 
     fee imposed on a refugee admitted under section 207(a) of 
     that Act for employment authorization or adjustment of 
     status.
       (B) Effective date.--This paragraph shall apply to 
     applications for employment authorization or adjustment of 
     status filed before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Covered Aliens.--An alien described in subsection (a) 
     is an alien who was a United States Government employee, 
     employee of a nongovernmental organization based in the 
     United States, or other Iraqi national who was moved to Guam 
     by the United States Government in 1996 or 1997 pursuant to 
     an arrangement made by the United States Government, and who 
     was granted asylum in the United States under section 208(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)).


                           amendment no. 3302

     (Purpose: To focus resources of the Department of Justice on 
              prosecuting violations of federal gun laws)

       On page 9, beginning on line 15, strike ``Attorneys.'' and 
     insert the following: ``Attorneys: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $3,000,000 shall 
     remain available to hire additional assistant U.S. Attorneys 
     and investigators to enforce Federal laws designed to keep 
     firearms out of the hands of criminals, and the Attorney 
     General is directed to initiate a selection process to 
     identify two (2) major metropolitan areas (which shall not be 
     in the same geographic area of the United States) which have 
     an unusually high incidence of gun-related crime, where the 
     funds described in this subsection shall be expended.''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3303

(Purpose: Relating to information infrastructure grants of the National 
           Telecommunications and Information Administration)

       On page 72, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 209. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the amount appropriated by this title under 
     ``National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration'' under the heading ``information 
     infrastructure grants'' is hereby increased by $9,000,000.
       (2) The additional amount appropriated by paragraph (1) 
     shall remain available until expended.
       (b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     aggregate amount appropriated by this title under 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE'' is hereby reduced by $9,000,000 
     with the amount of such reduction achieved by reductions of 
     equal amounts from amounts appropriated by each heading under 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE'' except the headings referred to in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Reductions under paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
     following amounts:
       (A) Amounts appropriated under ``National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration'' under the 
     heading ``public telecommunications facilities, planning and 
     construction'' and under the heading ``information 
     infrastructure grants''.
       (B) Amounts appropriated under any heading under ``National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology''.
       (C) Amounts appropriated under any heading under ``National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration''.
       (c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     second proviso under ``National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration'' under the heading ``information 
     infrastructure grants'' shall have no force or effect.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no entity 
     that receives telecommunications services at preferential 
     rates under section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) or receives assistance under the regional 
     information sharing systems grant program of the Department 
     of Justice under part M of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) may 
     use funds under a grant under the heading referred to in 
     paragraph (1) to cover any costs of the entity that would 
     otherwise be covered by such preferential rates or such 
     assistance, as the case may be.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3304

 (Purpose: To amend the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to 
 clarify the conditions under which export controls may be imposed on 
                         agricultural products)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. AGRICULTURAL EXPORT CONTROLS.

       The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 208 as section 209; and
       (2) by inserting after section 207 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 208. AGRICULTURAL CONTROLS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Report to congress.--If the President imposes export 
     controls on any agricultural commodity in order to carry out 
     the provisions of this Act, the President shall immediately 
     transmit a report on such action to Congress, setting forth 
     the reasons for the controls in detail and specifying the 
     period of time, which may not exceed 1 year, that the 
     controls are proposed to be in effect. If Congress, within 60 
     days after the date of its receipt of the report, adopts a 
     joint resolution pursuant to subsection (b), approving the 
     imposition of the export controls, then such controls shall 
     remain in effect for the period specified in the report, or 
     until terminated by the President, whichever occurs first. If 
     Congress, within 60 days after the date of its receipt of 
     such report, fails to adopt a joint resolution approving such 
     controls, then such controls shall cease to be effective upon 
     the expiration of that 60-day period.
       ``(2) Application of paragraph (1).--The provisions of 
     paragraph (1) and subsection (b) shall not apply to export 
     controls--
       ``(A) which are extended under this Act if the controls, 
     when imposed, were approved by Congress under paragraph (1) 
     and subsection (b); or
       ``(B) which are imposed with respect to a country as part 
     of the prohibition or curtailment of all exports to that 
     country.
       ``(b) Joint Resolution.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `joint resolution' means only a joint resolution the 
     matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: 
     `That, pursuant to section 208 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act, the President may impose export controls 
     as specified in the report submitted to Congress on 
     __________________.', with the blank space being filled with 
     the appropriate date.
       ``(2) Introduction.--On the day on which a report is 
     submitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     under subsection (a), a joint resolution with respect to the 
     export controls specified in such report shall be introduced 
     (by request) in the House of Representatives by the chairman 
     of the Committee on International Relations, for himself and 
     the ranking minority member of the Committee, or by Members 
     of the House designated by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member; and shall be introduced (by request) in the Senate by 
     the Majority Leader of the Senate, for himself and the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate, or by Members of the Senate 
     designated by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the 
     Senate. If either House is not in session on the day on which 
     such a report is submitted, the joint resolution shall be 
     introduced in that House, as provided in the preceding 
     sentence, on the first day thereafter on which that House is 
     in session.
       ``(3) Referral.--All joint resolutions introduced in the 
     House of Representatives and in the Senate shall be referred 
     to the appropriate committee.
       ``(4) Discharge of committee.--If the committee of either 
     House to which a joint resolution has been referred has not 
     reported the joint resolution at the end of 30 days after its 
     referral, the committee shall be discharged from further 
     consideration of the joint resolution or of any other joint 
     resolution introduced with respect to the same matter.
       ``(5) Consideration in senate and house of 
     representatives.--A joint resolution under this subsection 
     shall be considered in the Senate in accordance with the 
     provisions of section 601(b)(4) of the International Security 
     Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976. For the 
     purpose of expediting the consideration and passage of joint 
     resolutions reported or discharged pursuant to the provisions 
     of this subsection, it shall be in order for the Committee on 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to present for 
     consideration a resolution of the House of Representatives 
     providing procedures for the immediate consideration of a 
     joint resolution under this subsection which may be similar, 
     if applicable, to the procedures set forth in section 
     601(b)(4) of the International Security Assistance and Arms 
     Export Control Act of 1976.
       ``(6) Passage by 1 house.--In the case of a joint 
     resolution described in paragraph (1), if, before the passage 
     by 1 House of a joint resolution of that House, that House 
     receives a resolution with respect to the same matter from 
     the other House, then--
       ``(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if 
     no joint resolution had been received from the other House; 
     but
       ``(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint 
     resolution of the other House.
       ``(c) Computation of Time.--In the computation of the 
     period of 60 days referred to in subsection (a) and the 
     period of 30 days referred to in paragraph (4) of subsection 
     (b), there shall be excluded the days on which either House 
     of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of 
     more than 3 days to a day certain or because of an 
     adjournment of Congress sine die.''.

[[Page S8860]]

                           amendment no. 3305

       On page 101, line 17, insert after the period: ``Provided, 
     That, of this amount, $1,400,000 shall be available for 
     Student Incentive Payments.''

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to explain a provision included 
in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill manager's amendment 
and to convey my thanks to Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for 
including it. This provision directs funding for the Student Incentive 
Payment (SIP) program for FY99.
  I am very concerned about language in the Administration's budget 
calling for a four-year phase-out of SIP, beginning in FY99. These 
payments are used to help students at state maritime schools defray the 
cost of their education. In exchange for an annual stipend while they 
are in school, these students incur a 6 year obligation in the Navy and 
Merchant Marine Reserve. They represent an important element of the 
Navy's professional mariners and a cadre of trained professionals 
available in the event of a national emergency when activation of the 
Ready Reserve Fleet is required.
  I commend the subcommittee for sharing my concern. The subcommittee 
report reflects this concern by calling upon MARAD to report on the 
willingness of the Navy to pay for the program. However, I understand 
that discussions between the Navy and MARAD are still on-going which, 
while encouraging, may mean that the incoming class at state maritime 
academies may not be able to take advantage of SIP as their classmates 
ahead of them have, and those behind them hopefully will. If we are 
going to ensure continuity, we have to fund SIP for another year in 
this bill.
  This provision restores SIP funding in the FY99 budget, preserving 
the program in order to allow the Navy to assume the funding 
responsibility beginning in FY2000. I am pleased that we have bought 
more time for MARAD and the Navy to negotiate the transfer of financial 
responsibility for this program. I am very hopeful that we will have a 
negotiated continuation of SIP under the Navy in FY2000 and beyond. I 
thank the Chairman for working with me to ensure this result.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3306

(Purpose: To require certain new employees in the Office of the United 
 States Trade Representative to work exclusively on investigating the 
 acts, policies, and practices of the Canadian Wheat Board and whether 
 the acts, policies, or practices cause material injury to the United 
             States grain industry, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place in title VI, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. ____. INVESTIGATION OF PRACTICES OF CANADIAN WHEAT 
                   BOARD.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not less than 4 of the new employees authorized in 
     fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the Office of the United 
     States Trade Representative shall work on investigating 
     pricing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board and determining 
     whether the United States spring wheat, barley, or durum 
     wheat industries have suffered injury as a result of those 
     practices.
       (b) Scope of Investigation.--The purpose of the 
     investigation described in subsection (a) shall be to 
     determine whether the practices of the Canadian Wheat Board 
     constitute violations of the antidumping or countervailing 
     duty provisions of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 or the 
     provisions of title II or III of the Trade Act of 1974. The 
     investigation shall include--
       (1) a determination as to whether the United States durum 
     wheat industry, spring wheat industry, or barley industry is 
     being materially injured or is threatened with material 
     injury as a result of the practices of the Canadian Wheat 
     Board;
       (2) a determination as to whether the acts, policies, or 
     practices of the Canadian Wheat Board--
       (A) violate, or are inconsistent with, the provisions of, 
     or otherwise deny benefits to the United States under, any 
     trade agreement, or
       (B) are unjustifiable or burden or restrict United States 
     commerce;
       (3) a review of home market price and cost of acquisition 
     of Canadian grain;
       (4) a determination as to whether Canadian grain is being 
     imported into the United States in sufficient quantities to 
     be a substantial cause of serious injury or threat of serious 
     injury to the United States spring wheat, barley, or durum 
     wheat industries; and
       (5) a determination as to whether there is harmonization in 
     the requirements for cross-border transportation of grain 
     between Canada and the United States.
       (c) Action Based On Results of the Investigation.--
       (1) In general.--If, based on the investigation conducted 
     pursuant to this section, there is an affirmative 
     determination under subsection (b) with respect to any act, 
     policy, or practice of the Canadian Wheat Board, appropriate 
     action shall be initiated under title VII of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930, or title II or III of the Trade Act of 1974.
       (2) Correction of harmonization problems.--If, based on the 
     investigation conducted pursuant to this section, there is a 
     determination that there is no harmonization for cross-border 
     grain transportation between Canada and the United States, 
     the United States Trade Representative shall report to 
     Congress regarding what action should be taken in order to 
     harmonize cross-border transportation requirements.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the United States Trade Representative 
     shall report to Congress on the results of the investigation 
     conducted pursuant to this section.
       (e) Definition of Grain.--For purposes of this section, the 
     terms ``Canadian grain'' and ``grain'' include spring wheat, 
     durum wheat, and barley.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3307

     (Purpose: To preserve and enhance local FM radio service for 
                         underserved counties)

       On page 135, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 620. (a) In General.--Section 331 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 331) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) FM Translator Stations.--(1) It may be the policy of 
     the Commission, in any case in which the licensee of an 
     existing FM translator station operating in the commercial FM 
     band is licensed to a county (or to a community in such 
     county) that has a population of 700,000 or more persons, is 
     not an integral part of a larger municipal entity, and lacks 
     a commercial FM radio station licensed to the county (or to 
     any community within such county), to extend to the 
     licensee--
       ``(A) authority for the origination of unlimited local 
     programming through the station on a primary basis but only 
     if the licensee abides in such programming by all rules, 
     regulations, and policies of the Commission regarding program 
     material, content, schedule, and public service obligations 
     otherwise applicable to commercial FM radio stations; and
       ``(B) authority to operate the station (either 
     omindirectionally or directionally, with facilities 
     equivalent to those of a station operating with maximum 
     effective radiated power of less than 100 watts and maximum 
     antenna height above average terrain of 100 meters) if--
       ``(i) the station is not located within 320 kilometers 
     (approximately 199 miles) of the United States border with 
     Canada or with Mexico;
       ``(ii) the station provides full service FM stations 
     operating on co-channel and first adjacent channels 
     protection from interference as required by rules and 
     regulations of the Commission applicable to full service FM 
     stations; and
       ``(iii) the station complies with any other rules, 
     regulations, and policies of the Commission applicable to FM 
     translator stations that are not inconsistent with the 
     provisions of this subparagraph.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any rules, regulations, or policies 
     of the Commission applicable to FM translator stations, a 
     station operated under the authority of paragraph (1)(B)--
       ``(A) may accept or receive any amount of theoretical 
     interference from any full service FM station;
       ``(B) may be deemed to comply in such operation with any 
     intermediate frequency (IF) protection requirements if the 
     station's effective radiated power in the pertinent direction 
     is less than 100 watts;
       ``(C) may not be required to provide protection in such 
     operation to any other FM station operating on 2nd or 3rd 
     adjacent channels;
       ``(D) may utilize transmission facilities located in the 
     county to which the station is licensed or in which the 
     station's community of license is located; and
       ``(E) may utilize a directional antennae in such operation 
     to the extent that such use is necessary to assure provision 
     of maximum possible service to the residents of the county in 
     which the station is licensed or in which the station's 
     community of license is located.
       ``(3)(A) A licensee may exercise the authority provided 
     under paragraph (1)(A) immediately upon written notification 
     to the Commission of its intent to exercise such authority.
       ``(B)(i) A licensee may submit to the Commission an 
     application to exercise the authority provided under 
     paragraph (1)(B). The Commission may treat the application as 
     an application for a minor change to the license to which the 
     application applies.
       ``(ii) A licensee may exercise the authority provided under 
     paragraph (1)(B) upon the granting of the application to 
     exercise the authority under clause (i).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The section heading of that 
     section is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 331. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY STATIONS AND AM AND FM RADIO 
                   STATIONS.''.

       (c) Renewal of Certain Licenses.--(1) Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission 
     may renew the license of an FM translator station the 
     licensee of which is exercising authority under subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of section 331(c)(1) of the Communications Act

[[Page S8861]]

     of 1934, as added by subsection (a), upon application for 
     renewal of such license filed after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, if the Commission determines that the public 
     interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the 
     renewal of the license.
       (2) If the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that 
     the public interest, convenience, and necessity would not be 
     served by the renewal of a license, the Commission shall, 
     within 30 days of the date on which the decision not to renew 
     the license becomes final, provide for the filing of 
     applications for licenses for FM translator service to 
     replace the FM translator service covered by the license not 
     to be renewed.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3308

 (Purpose: To provide for a study of sediment control at Grand Marais, 
                               Michigan)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 2____. SEDIMENT CONTROL STUDY.

       Of the amounts made available under this Act to the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 
     operations, research, and facilities that are used for ocean 
     and Great Lakes programs, $50,000 shall be used for a study 
     of sediment control at Grand Marais, Michigan.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3309

 (Purpose: To establish certain limitations with respect to build-out 
          and moving costs of the Patent and Trademark Office)

       On page 62, lines 3 through 16, strike ``That if the 
     standard build-out'' and all that follows through ``covered 
     by those costs.'' and insert the following: ``That the 
     standard build-out costs of the Patent and Trademark Office 
     shall not exceed $36.69 per occupiable square foot for 
     office-type space (which constitutes the amount specified in 
     the Advanced Acquisition program of the General Services 
     Administration) and shall not exceed an aggregate amount 
     equal to $88,000,000: Provided further, That the moving costs 
     of the Patent and Trademark Office (which shall include the 
     costs of moving furniture, telephone, and data installation) 
     shall not exceed $135,000,000: Provided further, That the 
     portion of the moving costs referred to in the preceding 
     proviso that may be used for alterations that are above 
     standard costs may not exceed $29,000,000.''.


                           amendment no. 3310

    (Purpose: To require that reports submitted to the Committee on 
   Appropriations concerning matters within the jurisdiction of the 
 Committee on the Judiciary also be submitted to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary)

       On page 51, line 9, add a new section 121:
       ``Sec. 121. For fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, for any 
     report which is required or authorized by this act to be 
     submitted or delivered to the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate or of the House of Representatives by the 
     Department of Justice or any component, agency, or bureau 
     thereof, or which concerns matters within the jurisdiction of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate or of the House 
     of Representatives, a copy of such report shall be submitted 
     to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and of the 
     House of Representatives concurrently as the report is 
     submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or 
     of the House of Representatives.''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3311

 (Purpose: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate, 
for alien battered spouses and children, certain restrictions rendering 
   them ineligible to apply for adjustment of status, suspension of 
   deportation, and cancellation of removal, and for other purposes)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:
                    TITLE ____--VAWA RESTORATION ACT

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``VAWA Restoration Act''.

     SEC. ____02. REMOVING BARRIERS TO ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR 
                   VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 245 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``of an alien who 
     qualifies for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), 
     (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) or'' after 
     ``The status'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``An alien who qualifies for classification under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of 
     section 204(a)(1) who files for adjustment of status under 
     this subsection shall pay a $1,000 fee, subject to the 
     provisions of section 245(k).'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``201(b) or a 
     special'' and inserting ``201(b), an alien who qualifies for 
     classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), 
     or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1), or a special'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(4), by striking ``201(b))'' and 
     inserting ``201(b) or an alien who qualifies for 
     classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), 
     or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1))'';
       (5) in subsection (c)(5), by inserting ``(other than an 
     alien who qualifies for classification under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 
     204(a)(1))'' after ``an alien''; and
       (6) in subsection (c)(8), by inserting ``(other than an 
     alien who qualifies for classification under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 
     204(a)(1)'' after ``any alien''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to applications for adjustment of status pending 
     on or after the date of the enactment of this title.

     SEC. ____03. REMOVING BARRIERS TO CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND 
                   SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION FOR VICTIMS OF 
                   DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Special rule for calculating continuous period for 
     battered spouse or child.--Paragraph (1) of section 240A(d) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Termination of continuous period.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     for purposes of this section, any period of continuous 
     residence or continuous physical presence in the United 
     States shall be deemed to end when the alien is served a 
     notice to appear under section 239(a) or when the alien has 
     committed an offense referred to in section 212(a)(2) that 
     renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under 
     section 212(a)(2) or removable from the United States under 
     section 237(a)(2) or 237(a)(4), whichever is earliest.
       ``(B) Special rule for battered spouse or child.--For 
     purposes of subsection (b)(2), the service of a notice to 
     appear referred to in subparagraph (A) shall not be deemed to 
     end any period of continuous physical presence in the United 
     States.''.
       (2) Exemption from annual limitation on cancellation of 
     removal for battered spouse or child.--Section 240A(e)(3) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(e)(3)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Aliens whose removal is canceled under subsection 
     (b)(2).''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of 
     section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     587).
       (b) Modification of Certain Transition Rules for Battered 
     Spouse or Child.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (C) of section 309(c)(5) of 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) (as amended by section 203 
     of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act) 
     is amended--
       (A) by amending the subparagraph heading to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) Special rule for certain aliens granted temporary 
     protection from deportation and for battered spouses and 
     children.--''; and
       (B) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (IV);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of subclause (V) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(VI) is an alien who was issued an order to show cause or 
     was in deportation proceedings prior to April 1, 1997, and 
     who applied for suspension of deportation under section 
     244(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in 
     effect before the date of the enactment of this Act).''.

       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     309 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note).

     SEC. ____04. ELIMINATING TIME LIMITATIONS ON MOTIONS TO 
                   REOPEN REMOVAL AND DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS FOR 
                   VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

       (a) Removal Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Section 240(c)(6)(C) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(C)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) Special rule for battered spouses and children.--
     There is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen, 
     and the deadline specified in subsection (b)(5)(C) does not 
     apply, if the basis of the motion is to apply for adjustment 
     of status based on a petition filed under clause (iii) or 
     (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A), clause (ii) or (iii) of section 
     204(a)(1)(B), or section 240A(b)(2) and if the motion to 
     reopen is accompanied by a cancellation of removal 
     application to be filed with the Attorney General or by a 
     copy of the self-petition that will be filed with the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service upon the granting of 
     the motion to reopen.''
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     587).
       (b) Deportation Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any limitation imposed by 
     law on motions to reopen deportation proceedings under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before the 
     title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)), there is no time limit on the filing 
     of a motion to reopen such proceedings, and the deadline 
     specified in section 242B(c)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (as so in effect) does not apply, if the 
     basis of the motion is to apply for relief under clause (iii) 
     or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B) 
     of such Act, or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as so in 
     effect) and if the motion to reopen is accompanied by a 
     cancellation of removal application to be filed with the 
     Attorney General or by a copy of the self-petition that will 
     be filed with the

[[Page S8862]]

     Immigration and Naturalization Service upon the granting of 
     the motion to reopen.
       (2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to motions 
     filed by aliens who--
       (A) are, or were, in deportation proceedings under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before the 
     title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)); and
       (B) have become eligible to apply for relief under clause 
     (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B) 
     of such Act, or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as in effect 
     before the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)) as a result of the amendments 
     made by--
       (i) subtitle G of title IV of the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 
     1953 et seq.); or
       (ii) section ____03 of this title.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3312

  (Purpose: To amend the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 to ensure 
                  greater protection of elderly women)

       On page ____, after line ____, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. (a) In General.--Part T of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 2001 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg)--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by inserting ``, including older women'' after ``combat 
     violent crimes against women''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, including older women'' before the 
     period; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, 
     including older women'' after ``against women'';
       (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and' after the 
     semicolon;
       (iii) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) developing, through the oversight of the State 
     administrator, a curriculum to train and assist law 
     enforcement officers, prosecutors, and relevant officers of 
     Federal, State, tribal, and local courts in recognizing, 
     addressing, investigating, and prosecuting instances 
     involving elder domestic abuse, including domestic violence 
     and sexual assault against older individuals.'';
       (2) in section 2002(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-1), by 
     inserting ``and elder domestic abuse experts'' after ``victim 
     services programs''; and
       (3) in section 2003 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2)--
       (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) the term `elder' has the same meaning as the term 
     `older individual' in section 102 of the Older Americans Act 
     of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002); and
       ``(10) the term `domestic abuse' means an act or threat of 
     violence, not including an act of self-defense, committed 
     by--
       ``(A) a current or former spouse of the victim;
       ``(B) a person related by blood or marriage to the victim;
       ``(C) a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated 
     with the victim;
       ``(D) a person with whom the victim shares a child in 
     common;
       ``(E) a person who is or has been in the social 
     relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the 
     victim; and
       ``(F) a person similarly situated to a spouse of the 
     victim, or by any other person;

     if the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction 
     of the victim provide for legal protection of the victim from 
     the person.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to grants beginning with fiscal year 1999.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this amendment 
with my distinguished colleagues Senators Collins, Jeffords, Reid, 
Harkin, Mikulski, Cleland, and Graham.
  Unfortunately for some, domestic violence is a life long experience. 
Those who perpetrate violence against their family members do not 
desist because the family member grows older. In fact, in some cases, 
the abuse may become more severe as the victim ages becoming more 
isolated from the community with their removal from the workforce. 
Other age-related factors such as increased frailty may increase a 
victim's vulnerability. it also is true that older victims' ability to 
report abuse is frequently confounded by their reliance on their abuser 
for care or housing.
  Every seven minutes in Illinois, there is an incidence of elder 
abuse. Several research studies have shown that elder abuse is the most 
under reported familial crime. It is even more under reported than 
child abuse with only between one in eight and one in fourteen 
incidents estimated to be reported. Seniors who experience abuse worry 
they will be banished to a nursing home if they report abuse. They also 
must struggle with the ethical dilemma of reporting abuse by their 
children to the authorities and thus increasing their child's 
likelihood of going to jail. Shame and fear gag them so that they 
remain ``silent victims.''
  The Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill funds the STOP law 
enforcement state grants program. This program provides funding for 
services and training for officers and prosecutors for dealing with 
domestic violence. This training needs to be sensitive to the needs of 
all victims, young and old. However, the images portrayed in the media 
of the victims of domestic violence generally depict a young woman, 
with small children. Consequently, may people including law enforcement 
officers may not readily identify older victims as suffering domestic 
abuse. The victims themselves may also be reluctant to report such 
abuse. Many older women were raised to believe that family business is 
a private matter. Problems within families were not to be discussed 
with anyone, especially strangers or counselors. Only a handful of 
domestic abuse programs throughout the country are reaching out to 
older women.
  This amendment seeks to improve the STOP grants program by making it 
more sensitive to the needs of the nations seniors. We know that great 
improvements have taken place since the Violence Against Women Act was 
first passed. One of the most successful programs is the law 
enforcement and prosecutor training program, which received over $200 
million in FY 1998. This bill would increase that level to $210 
million. Improvement in this program can be made with respect to 
identifying abuse among all age groups especially seniors who are often 
overlooked. When the abuser is old, there may be a reticence on the 
part of law enforcement to deal with this person in the same way that 
they might deal with a younger person. Who wants to send an ``old guy'' 
to jail? However, lack of action jeopardizes the victim further because 
then the abuser has every reason to believe that there are no 
consequences for their actions. Another common problem is 
differentiating between injuries related to abuse and injuries arising 
from aging, frailty or illness. too many older women's broken bones 
have been attributed to disorientation, osteoporosis or other age-
related vulnerabilities without any questions being asked to make sure 
that they are not the result of abuse.
  With the greying of America, the problems of elder domestic abuse in 
all its many ugly manifestations, is likely to grow. I believe that we 
need to take a comprehensive look at our existing family violence 
programs and ensure that these programs serve seniors and are sensitive 
and knowledgeable of elder domestic abuse.
  I am pleased to be joined by Senators Reid, Harkin, Cleland, 
Mikulski, Graham, Jeffords, and Collins in offering this amendment, 
which focuses attention on the needs of the ``forgotten older victims 
of domestic violence.''
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 
included vital provisions to protect abused immigrant women--so they 
wouldn't have to choose to stay in an abusive marriage or be deported 
from America
  This has helped a relatively small number of battered women--a few 
thousand each year--but it was important that we--on a bipartisan 
basis--took this moral step.
  Since 1994, we have found other ways in which we in effect force 
women to remain in abusive marriages and rely on their abusive husbands 
for their immigration status.
  This amendment restores the protections of the original Violence 
Against Women Act in four key ways:
  By ensuring that battered women are included in the narrow 
immigration provision already included in this bill.
  By preventing the roughly 1500 women per year who complete the full 
process of proving that they are in fact battered from being deported 
solely because of some arbitrary limits.
  By allowing the Immigration and Naturalization Service to permit a 
battered woman to remain in the U.S. even though she has left the 
country for a brief period--provided that she has an understandable 
reason (such as

[[Page S8863]]

in the case of a woman who was literally taken to Mexico against her 
will).
  And by requiring the Immigration and Naturalization Service to give a 
battered woman an opportunity to prove that she was battered and 
eligible for Violence Against Women Act relief before deporting her 
under an order issued without her notice.
  This is an important amendment--even though it will affect a modest 
number of battered women. I am pleased that this amendment is 
cosponsored by Senators Abraham, Kennedy, Leahy, Wellstone and others. 
I am also pleased that this amendment has been accepted and will be 
adopted by the full Senate unanimously.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment 
introduced by my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, 
to strengthen the capability of our law enforcement community to 
protect older women from violence.
  There is no conduct less consistent with the precepts of a civilized 
society than the physical abuse of those unable to defend themselves. 
Our recognition of this has led to an aggressive and ongoing campaign 
against child abuse, and it must lead to an equally strong response to 
domestic violence directed at older Americans.
  Mr. President, at a 1995 hearing in Portland, Maine, chaired by my 
predecessor, Senator Cohen, elder abuse was aptly described as 
``society's secret shame.'' Family violence, particularly when directed 
at the elderly, was a major concern of Senator Cohen, and I welcome the 
opportunity to continue his efforts to combat this intolerable 
mistreatment of older Americans.
  Mr. President, earlier this year my home state released its crime 
statistics for 1997. I was cheered by the wonderful news that crime 
fell by 8.7% from 1996, to the lowest rate in at least 20 years. Hidden 
behind this positive statistic, however, was one that was very 
disquieting, namely, that domestic violence increased by 7.8%. 
Ironically, at the same time as we are becoming less likely to be 
harmed by strangers, many of our neighbors face an increasing threat 
from members of their own households.
  National data demonstrate that cases of domestic elder abuse, which 
includes neglect as well as physical abuse, are steadily increasing. 
From 1986 to 1996, the number of cases went from 117,000 to 293,000, an 
increase of 150%. Furthermore, there is widespread agreement that this 
type of abuse is greatly underreported. For example, although the 
number of reported cases in 1994 was 241,000, the National Center on 
Elder Abuse estimates that the true number of cases was 818,000.
  Mr. President, while these numbers indicate a serious and growing 
problem, all of the statistics in the world do not describe the problem 
as eloquently as the words of a single victim. At the Maine hearing, 
one such victim told what happened to her at the hands of her husband 
after her children left home.

       [T]hings got really bad. I had two broken wrists, cracked 
     ribs, held down with his knee on my chest with a knife at my 
     throat. I was made to crawl across the floor with a gun 
     resting on my head, ready to fire. I've been choked until I 
     was limp, and then he would drop me on the floor with a kick. 
     I've been spit on, thrown through a window, dragged into the 
     lake as he said he was going to drown me.

Astonishingly, but not atypically, the witness was married to her 
husband for 44 years.
  Mr. President, this type of treatment cannot be tolerated. As a 
cosponsor of the Durbin amendment, I sincerely hope that my colleagues 
will take this modest step to enhance the ability of the law 
enforcement community to protect this vulnerable segment of our 
society.


                           amendment No. 3313

(Purpose: To modify the membership of the Federal-State Joint Board on 
                           universal service)

       On page 72, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 209. (a) In General.--Section 254(a) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the second sentence in paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Membership of joint board.--
       ``(A) In General.--The Joint Board required by paragraph 
     (1) shall be composed of 9 members, as follows:
       ``(i) 3 shall be members of the Federal Communications 
     Commission;
       ``(ii) 1 shall be a State-appointed utility consumer 
     advocate nominated by a national organization of State 
     utility consumer advocates; and
       ``(iii) 5 shall be State utility commissioners nominated by 
     the national organization of State utility commissions, with 
     at least 2 such commissioners being commissioners of 
     commissions of rural States.
       ``(B) Co-chairmen.--The Joint Board shall have 2 co-
     chairmen of equal authority, one of whom shall be a member of 
     the Federal Communications Commission, and the other of whom 
     shall be one of the 5 members described in subparagraph 
     (A)(iii). The Federal Communications Commission shall adopt 
     rules and procedures under which the co-chairmen of the Joint 
     Board will have equal authority and equal responsibility for 
     the Joint Board.
       ``(C) Rural state defined.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `rural State' means any State in which the 1998 high-cost 
     universal service support payments to local telephone 
     companies exceeds 90 cents on a per loop per month basis.''.
       (b) FCC To Adopt Procedures Promptly.--The Federal 
     Communications Commission shall adopt rules under section 
     254(a)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     254(a)(2)(B)), as added by subsection (a) of this section, 
     within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reconstituted Joint Board To Consider Universal 
     Service.--The Federal-State Joint Board established under 
     section 254(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 254(a)(1)) shall not take action on the Commission's 
     Order and Order on Reconsideration adopted July 13, 1998, (CC 
     Docket No. 96-45; FCC 98-160) relating to universal service 
     until--
       (1) the Commission has adopted rules under section 
     254(a)(2)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     254(a)(2)(B)); and
       (2) the co-chairmen of the Joint Board have been chosen 
     under that section.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment that would 
provide rural States with a stronger representation on the Federal-
State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board).
  Such a change is necessary because critical universal telephone 
service issues have been mishandled by the Joint Board since the 
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  The Joint Board was intended to provide the States with an 
opportunity to help craft national universal service policy because the 
States are more experienced in dealing with these issues than their 
national counterparts.
  The Act created the Joint Board and required the Board to make 
recommendations concerning how the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) should implement the universal service provisions contained in 
the Act.
  However, the Joint Board was chaired by former FCC Chairman Reed 
Hundt, and the Board made recommendations that undermine rural 
interests and put upward pressure on rural residential telephone rates.
  The Joint Board needs greater representation from the States, 
especially rural States. My amendment would do the following:
  Add an additional State Utility Commissioner to the Joint Board.
  Require that two of the five State Utility Commissioners serving on 
the Board represent rural States.
  Require that one of the State Commissioners and one of the FCC 
Commissioners serve as Co-Chairmen of the Joint Board.
  Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that rural interests are 
adequately represented on the Joint Board, and that the recommendations 
made to the FCC are consistent with the universal service goals of the 
Act.
  Mr. President, I have been very frustrated with the manner in which 
universal service issues have been addressed by the Joint Board and the 
FCC since the passage of the Act. Although it is the most important 
part of universal service, the high-cost piece has been getting the 
short shrift.
  The FCC has just referred a number of critical high-cost issues back 
to the Joint Board for its consideration. This amendment is critical 
because rural communities across the country need to be effectively 
represented on the Board as it reviews these issues. The States, 
especially rural States, have the most experience dealing with the 
high-cost issues, and the recommendations of the Joint Board must 
adequately reflect their input and their expertise.

[[Page S8864]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 3314

(Purpose: To provide for the nonpoint pollution control program of the 
Coastal Zone Management program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
                            Administration)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 2____. NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL.

       (a) In General.--In addition to the amounts made available 
     to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under 
     this Act, $3,000,000 shall be made available to the 
     Administration for the nonpoint pollution control program of 
     the Coastal Zone Management program of the Administration.
       (b) Pro Rata Reductions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a pro rata reduction shall be made to each 
     program in the Department of Commerce funded under this Act 
     in such manner as to result in an aggregate reduction in the 
     amount of funds provided to those programs of $3,000,000.

                       nonpoint pollution control

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Gregg 
and Hollings for accepting this amendment to the Commerce, Justice, 
State and Judiciary Appropriations Bill which directs $3 million to the 
implementation of nonpoint pollution control plans in the Coastal Zone 
Management Program.
  I rise to draw this country's attention to the national significance 
of our coasts as an integral part of our national infrastructure. As we 
approach the next century, we must treat them like our roads, schools, 
and technology, as the foundation of economic development, job 
creation, and current prosperity. Our coasts are a central element of 
the tourism industry which nationally employs 14.4 million people and 
contributes over 10% to our GDP, making it the second-largest sector in 
the economy.
  With more than 50% of the nation's population living within 50 miles 
of the shore, our coastal areas are heavily used resources under severe 
environmental pressures from land development and associated activities 
as well as seasonal pressures from summer vacationers. For example, 
over 400,000 people live in the immediate vicinity of the Barnegat Bay 
estuary in New Jersey; in the summer that number doubles to 800,000. 
The popularity of Barnegat Bay has caused non-point source pollution 
from runoff and storm water discharges resulting in blooms of brown 
tide algae in 1995, 1997, and as recently as last month. Polluted 
runoff is the major reason why pfiesteria and hazardous algal blooms 
frequently close rivers, kill fish and make people sick. Nationwide, 
40% of our waters are not fit for fishing and swimming; 30% of our 
shellfish beds are closed or restricted for harvest; and 2500 beaches 
were declared unsafe for swimming in 1996.
  Created in the 1970's, the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program is a 
voluntary partnership between the federal government and coastal states 
and territories to preserve and restore our coastal areas. The program 
encourages the wise use of land and water resources through the 
preparation of special area management plans to protect natural 
resources while providing for coastal dependent economic growth.
  Section 6217 of the 1990 Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments 
requires states and territories with approved coastal zone management 
programs to develop and implement coastal nonpoint pollution plans. 
Through prior federal assistance, 29 plans (see attachment) have been 
conditionally approved and are ready for implementation. (In addition, 
Texas, Georgia, and Ohio, recently entered the CZM program and will 
also be working to develop nonpoint runoff plans.) The premise behind 
this amendment is simple: the federal government must continue to 
support those who have developed nonpoint pollution plans and are now 
ready to implement them. These funds are an investment in our future, 
an investment that will pay dividends not just for our towns and 
states, but for the entire country and for generations to come.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list of states with approved plans 
be entered into the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 States and Territories With Approved Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Plans

     Alabama
     Alaska
     American Samoa
     California
     Connecticut
     Delaware
     Florida
     Guam
     Hawaii
     Louisiana
     Maine
     Maryland
     Massachusetts
     Michigan
     Mississippi
     New Hampshire
     New Jersey
     New York
     North Carolina
     Northern Mariana Islands
     Oregon
     Pennsylvania
     Puerto Rico
     Rhode Island
     South Carolina
     Virgin Islands
     Virginia
     Washington
     Wisconsin


                           amendment no. 3315

       On page 34, line 20, insert the following: Strike 
     ``65,960,000'' and insert ``66,960,000''.
       On page 34, line 19, insert the following: Strike 
     ``$119,960,000'' and insert ``$120,960,000''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3316

(Purpose: To provide for sentencing enhancements and amendments to the 
 Federal Sentencing Guidelines for offenses relating to the abuse and 
           exploitation of children, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. CHILD EXPLOITATION SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Child; children.--The term ``child'' or ``children'' 
     means a minor or minors of an age specified in the applicable 
     provision of title 18, United States Code, that is subject to 
     review under this section.
       (2) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means any individual who has 
     not attained the age of 18, except that, with respect to 
     references to section 2243 of title 18, United States Code, 
     the term means an individual described in subsection (a) of 
     that section.
       (b) Increased Penalties For Use of a Computer In the Sexual 
     Abuse or Exploitation of a Child.--Pursuant to the authority 
     granted to the United States Sentencing Commission under 
     section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United 
     States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (1) review the Federal sentencing guidelines on aggravated 
     sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States 
     Code, sexual abuse under section 2242 of title 18, United 
     States Code, sexual abuse of a minor or ward under section 
     2243 of title 18, United States Code, coercion and enticement 
     of a juvenile under section 2422(b) of title 18, United 
     States Code, and transportation of minors under section 2423 
     of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) upon completion of the review under paragraph (1), 
     promulgate amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement if the 
     defendant used a computer with the intent to persuade, 
     induce, entice, or coerce a child of an age specified in the 
     applicable provision referred to in paragraph (1) to engage 
     in any prohibited sexual activity.
       (c) Increased Penalties For Knowing Misrepresentation In 
     the Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of a Child.--Pursuant to the 
     authority granted to the United States Sentencing Commission 
     under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (1) review the Federal sentencing guidelines on aggravated 
     sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States 
     Code, sexual abuse under section 2242 of title 18, United 
     States Code, sexual abuse of a minor or ward under section 
     2243 of title 18, United States Code, coercion and enticement 
     of a juvenile under section 2422(b) of title 18, United 
     States Code, and transportation of minors under section 2423 
     of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) upon completion of the review under paragraph (1), 
     promulgate amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement if the 
     defendant knowingly misrepresented the actual identity of the 
     defendant with the intent to persuade, induce, entice, or 
     coerce a child of an age specified in the applicable 
     provision referred to in paragraph (1) to engage in a 
     prohibited sexual activity.
       (d) Increased Penalties For Pattern of Activity of Sexual 
     Exploitation of Children.--Pursuant to the authority granted 
     to the United States Sentencing Commission under section 
     994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall--
       (1) review the Federal sentencing guidelines on criminal 
     sexual abuse, the production of sexually explicit material, 
     the possession of materials depicting a child engaging in 
     sexually explicit conduct, coercion and enticement of minors, 
     and the transportation of minors; and
       (2) upon completion of the review under paragraph (1), 
     promulgate amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement applicable to 
     the offenses referred to in paragraph (1) in any case in 
     which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity 
     involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.
       (e) Repeat Offenders; Increased Maximum Penalties For 
     Transportation For Illegal Sexual Activity and Related 
     Crimes.--
       (1) Repeat Offenders.--
       (A) Chapter 117.--
       (i) In general.--Chapter 117 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2425. Repeat offenders

       ``(a) In General.--Any person described in this subsection 
     shall be subject to the punishment under subsection (b). A 
     person described in this subsection is a person who

[[Page S8865]]

     violates a provision of this chapter, after one or more prior 
     convictions--
       ``(1) for an offense punishable under this chapter, or 
     chapter 109A or 110; or
       ``(2) under any applicable law of a State relating to 
     conduct punishable under this chapter, or chapter 109A or 
     110.
       ``(b) Punishment.--A violation of a provision of this 
     chapter by a person described in subsection (a) is punishable 
     by a term of imprisonment of a period not to exceed twice the 
     period that would otherwise apply under this chapter.''.
       (ii) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 117 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``2425. Repeat offenders.''.
       (B) Chapter 109a.--Section 2247 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2247. Repeat offenders

       ``(a) In General.--Any person described in this subsection 
     shall be subject to the punishment under subsection (b). A 
     person described in this subsection is a person who violates 
     a provision of this chapter, after one or more prior 
     convictions--
       ``(1) for an offense punishable under this chapter, or 
     chapter 110 or 117; or
       ``(2) under any applicable law of a State relating to 
     conduct punishable under this chapter, or chapter 110 or 117.
       ``(b) Punishment.--A violation of a provision of this 
     chapter by a person described in subsection (a) is punishable 
     by a term of imprisonment of a period not to exceed twice the 
     period that would otherwise apply under this chapter.''.
       (2) Increased maximum penalties for transportation for 
     illegal sexual activity and related crimes.--
       (A) Transportation generally.--Section 2421 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``five'' and 
     inserting ``10''.
       (B) Coercion and enticement of minors.--Section 2422 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``five'' and inserting 
     ``10''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
     ``15''.
       (C) Transportation of minors.--Section 2423 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``ten'' and inserting 
     ``15''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
     ``15''.
       (3) Amendment of sentencing guidelines.--Pursuant to the 
     authority granted to the United States Sentencing Commission 
     under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (A) review the Federal sentencing guidelines relating to 
     chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code; and
       (B) upon completion of the review under subparagraph (A), 
     promulgate such amendments to the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines as are necessary to provide for the amendments 
     made by this subsection.
       (f) Clarification of Definition of Distribution of 
     Pornography.--Pursuant to the authority granted to the United 
     States Sentencing Commission under section 994(p) of title 
     28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall--
       (1) review the Federal sentencing guidelines relating to 
     the distribution of pornography covered under chapter 110 of 
     title 18, United States Code, relating to the sexual 
     exploitation and other abuse of children; and
       (2) upon completion of the review under paragraph (1), 
     promulgate such amendments to the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines as are necessary to clarify that the term 
     ``distribution of pornography'' applies to the distribution 
     of pornography--
       (A) for monetary remuneration; or
       (B) for a nonpecuniary interest.
       (g) Directive To the United States Sentencing Commission.--
     In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall--
       (1) with respect to any action relating to the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines subject to this section, ensure 
     reasonable consistency with other guidelines of the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines; and
       (2) with respect to an offense subject to the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines, avoid duplicative punishment under the 
     guidelines for substantially the same offense.
       (h) Authorization For Guardians Ad Litem.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, for the 
     purpose specified in paragraph (2), such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose specified in this paragraph is 
     the procurement, in accordance with section 3509(h) of title 
     18, United States Code, of the services of individuals with 
     sufficient professional training, experience, and familiarity 
     with the criminal justice system, social service programs, 
     and child abuse issues to serve as guardians ad litem for 
     children who are the victims of, or witnesses to, a crime 
     involving abuse or exploitation.
       (i) Applicability.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall apply to any action that commences on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.


                           Amendment No. 3317

       On page 128, line 9, strike ``(1)'';
       On page 129, line 3, strike ``(2)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``(b)''; on line 6, strike ``paragraph (1)'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``subsection (a)''; on line 14, strike 
     ``(3)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(c)''; strike 
     ``subsection'' and insert in lieu thereof ``section''.
       On page 129, strike all of the subsection ``(b)'' beginning 
     on line 18 to the end of the subsection on page 130.


                           Amendment No. 3318

(Purpose: To provide for funding for a firearm violation demonstration 
                                project)

       On page 9, line 15, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``:Provided further, That $2,300,000 shall be used 
     to provide for additional assistant United States attorneys 
     and investigators to serve in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and 
     Camden County, New Jersey, to enforce Federal laws designed 
     to prevent the possession by criminals of firearms (as that 
     term is defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code), of which $1,500,000 shall be used to provide for those 
     attorneys and investigators in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and 
     $800,000 shall be used to provide for those attorneys and 
     investigators in Camden County, New Jersey.''.


                           Amendment No. 3319

 (Purpose: To require the submission in advance of a certification to 
 Congress before certain funds are disbursed for contributions to the 
                            United Nations)

       On page 100, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       Sec. 407. Before any additional disbursement of funds may 
     be made pursuant to the sixth proviso under the heading 
     ``Contributions to International Organizations'' in title IV 
     of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (as 
     contained in Public Law 105-119)--
       (1) the Secretary of State shall, in lieu of the 
     certification required under such sixth proviso, submit a 
     certification to the committees described in paragraph (2) 
     that the United Nations has taken no action during the 
     preceding six months to increase funding for any United 
     Nations program without identifying an offsetting decrease 
     during the 6-month period elsewhere in the United Nations 
     budget and cause the United Nations to exceed the reform 
     budget of $2,533,000,000 for the biennium 1998-1999; and
       (2) the certification under paragraph (1) is submitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives at least 15 days in 
     advance of any disbursement of funds.


                           Amendment No. 3320

       At the appropriate place in Title IV, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . BAN ON EXTRADITION OR TRANSFER OF U.S. CITIZENS TO 
                   THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

       (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to extradite a 
     United States citizen to a foreign nation that is under an 
     obligation to surrender persons to the International Criminal 
     Court unless that foreign nation confirms to the United 
     States that applicable prohibitions on reextradition apply to 
     such surrender, or gives other satisfactory assurances to the 
     United States that it will not extradite or otherwise 
     transfer that citizen to the International Criminal Court.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to provide 
     consent to the extradition or transfer of a United States 
     citizen by a foreign country that is under an obligation to 
     surrender persons to the International Criminal Court to a 
     third country, unless the third country confirms to the 
     United States that applicable prohibitions on reextradition 
     apply to such surrender, or gives other satisfactory 
     assurances to the United States that it will not extradite or 
     otherwise transfer that citizen to the International Criminal 
     Court.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``International Criminal Court'' means the court established 
     by agreement concluded in Rome on July 17, 1998.


                           Amendment No. 3321

 (Purpose: To prohibit the availability of funds for the International 
Criminal Court unless the agreement establishing the Court is submitted 
 to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification as a treaty)

       On page 100, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 407. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this or any other Act (including prior 
     appropriations) may be used for--
       (1) the payment of any representation in, or any 
     contribution to (including any assessed contribution), or 
     provision of funds, services, equipment, personnel, or other 
     support to, the International Criminal Court established by 
     agreement concluded in Rome on July 17, 1998, or
       (2) the United States proportionate share of any assessed 
     contribution to the United Nations or any other international 
     organization that is used to provide support to the 
     International Criminal Court described in paragraph (1),

     unless the Senate has given its advice and consent to 
     ratification of the agreement as a treaty under Article II, 
     Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

  Mr. GREGG. I very much appreciate the kind comments obviously of the

[[Page S8866]]

Senator from South Carolina. This bill has been a fairly complicated 
exercise, but its movement is entirely tied to the fact that the 
Senator from South Carolina brings to this floor extraordinary 
expertise and professionalism. It is a joy to work with him because his 
knowledge of how to move things around here is second to none and his 
history as to where some of the issues lie is equally dramatic, and so 
I greatly appreciate the chance to work with him. I thank him for all 
of his support and effort. This has been a bill that has moved forward 
as a result of the strong support of the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank our chairman. Has our managers' amendment been 
adopted?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Manager's Amendment includes 
$800,000 to hire additional assistant U.S. attorneys and investigators 
in Camden County, New Jersey. This amendment builds on an initiative 
that was originally proposed by Senator Specter. At his request, the 
bill provides $1.5 million to hire additional assistant U.S. attorneys 
and investigators in Philadelphia to enforce federal laws designed to 
keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
  I appreciate Senator Specter's effort. I think that additional law 
enforcement funding will help stop the gun carnage on our streets. My 
amendment would expand this effort into Camden, which neighbors 
Philadelphia. I want to ensure that the crackdown in Philadelphia does 
not simply push gun criminals into Camden. Clearly, a cooperative 
effort will provide a more comprehensive solution for the entire 
region.
  I want to thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for their help 
with this amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the distinguished manager of the 
bill, Senator Gregg, yield for a colloquy?
  Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky for a 
colloguy.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) was intended to preserve the ability of 
law enforcement agencies to conduct court-approved wiretaps on new 
digital networks. Implementation of this important legislation is 
currently two-and-one-half years behind schedule because industry and 
law enforcement have not been able to reach agreement on technical 
standards required under CALEA. In March of this year, the Department 
of Justice, the FBI, industry, and privacy groups all agreed that the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should resolve the technical 
capability standards dispute as envisioned under CALEA. The latest 
information I have from the FCC is that the Commission does not expect 
to issue a final electronic surveillance capability standard until late 
this year.
  Does the Senator from New Hampshire agree that the FCC should make 
this decision?
  Mr. GREGG. I believe that the FCC should move expeditiously to 
resolve this matter.
  Mr. McCONNELL. After the statutory compliance date--October 25, 
1998--telecommunications carriers could be subject to fines of up to 
$10,000 per day for failure to deploy equipment to meet CALEA 
compliance standards that currently do not exist and will not exist 
until the FCC sets the standard. According to industry sources, 
telecommunications equipment manufacturers will need approximately two 
years after the FCC sets a final standard to develop technology to meet 
the new standard.
  CALEA authorized the Attorney General to reimburse the industry up to 
$500 million for the costs directly associated with modifying equipment 
that was installed or deployed before January 1, 1995 (the statutory 
``grandfather date''). Since January 1, 1995, a significant portion of 
all wireline switches, a majority of cellular switches, and virtually 
all personal communications services devices have been installed.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that if the FCC sets a new CALEA 
technical capability standard and there is no change to the January 1, 
1995 statutory grandfather date, industry may be required to retrofit 
that equipment at their own expense at a cost that could exceed 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  I do not think that the American people want to pay what could be 
considered an electronic surveillance tax running into the hundreds of 
millions of dollars. I know that the people in my state of Kentucky do 
not. I recognize that this is a complicated controversial issue, but I 
believe that Congress must act this year to adjust both the statutory 
compliance and grandfather dates contained in CALEA to allow the 
statute to work and avoid the prospect of an electronic surveillance 
tax on consumers.
  I would like to work with the Chairman and the distinguished Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Hollings of South Carolina, to see if 
together, we can find a way to address this problem this year.
  Mr. GREGG. I would be happy to work with the distinguished Senator 
and Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies on this 
issue.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chairman, and I yield the floor.


            Repeal of Section 110 in CJS Appropriations Bill

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Commerce, 
State, Justice Appropriations measure. As a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, I can speak to the importance of this 
legislation and I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for 
putting this bipartisan product together.
  I could speak to many important provisions in this bill for my 
constituents. From fisheries to the cops on the street to export 
assistance, this bill is important to Washington state. But there is 
one provision in the bill that I wish to give special attention to 
today. And that's the language to repeal Section 110 of the 1996 
Illegal Immigration Act.
  The repeal of Section 110 is one of my highest priorities for the 
year. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I do strongly 
support including the repeal in the Commerce, State, Justice 
Appropriations legislation.
  Section 110 requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to 
develop an automated entry and exit system for the purpose of 
documenting the entry and departure of ``every alien'' entering and 
leaving the United States. It was not until after Section 110 became 
law that Congress became aware of the full impact of this new language.
  As currently written, Section 110 will have disastrous consequences 
for U.S. border communities whose economies are dependent on border 
travel, trade and tourism. For example, more than $1 billion dollars in 
economic activity is generated each day by legal crossings between the 
U.S. and Canada. More than 116 million people legally crossed the 
border from Canada in 1996. This travel and economic activity will be 
discouraged to the detriment of U.S. interests if we impose new 
restrictions and create additional bureaucratic delays along our shared 
borders.
  Section 110 will have dire consequences for my entire state and 
particularly for the residents of Northwest Washington in Whatcom 
County. In my state, Section 110 will create an invisible barrier 
between neighbors, families and coworkers who happen to live on 
different sides of the border. More than $250 million dollars of annual 
economic activity in Washington state will be threatened. Border 
infrastructure which is already inadequate and overwhelmed at certain 
times of the year will be further burdened with new documentation 
requirements and traffic congestion certain to anger both American 
citizens and Canadian nationals. It is estimated that Section 110 will 
almost immediately create a 12 hour backup at the border in Blaine, 
Washington.
  Section 110 is a ticking time bomb. It's really that simple. The INS 
does not have the technology, facilities or trained personnel to 
implement this language. The real explosive issue here is the cost to 
implement Section 110. The INS is silent on this issue. That's because 
it will cost billions of dollars to implement the Section 110 time 
bomb. Let's be very clear on this point, without changes this provision 
will cost billions of dollars not anticipated

[[Page S8867]]

by either the Congress or the American people.
  Many of my constituents in Whatcom County will view the repeal of 
Section 110 as the most significant action taken by the Congress this 
year. Section 110 is the classic square peg solution for a round hole 
problem. That's why I've been fighting for more than a year to scrap 
the disastrous language.
  Last year, I introduced the first Senate bill on this issue. My bill, 
S. 1205, the U.S.-Canada Economic Friendship Preservation Act of 1997 
seeks to exempt Canadians from Section 110. The effort to fix the 
Section 110 problem has grown tremendously since the introduction of my 
bill. Communities across Washington state and virtually the entire 
Northern Border are working to preserve our close ties with our 
Canadian neighbors. Governors from Washington state, Michigan, Texas, 
Arizona and others are supporting the effort. Editorials endorsing the 
repeal of Section 110 have been written all across the country 
including The Bellingham Herald, The Seattle Post Intelligencer, The 
Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and The San Diego Union Tribune 
have all criticized Section 110. Numerous Chambers of Commerce and 
other business and community groups from all parts of the country are 
supporting the repeal Section 110 effort.
  Various legislative efforts have garnered bipartisan and broad 
support. I am also an original cosponsor of Senator Abraham's 
legislation addressing Section 110 and I compliment him for his 
leadership and advocacy on this issue. Senator Abraham has been a 
champion in this effort; holding hearings along the border and in 
Washington, D.C. in his capacity as Chairman of the Immigration 
Subcommittee. I continue to believe the Senate in addition to passing 
the language in this bill should pass Senator Abraham's stand alone 
bill on Section 110.
  I commend my colleagues at the Appropriations Committee for taking 
this action to repeal Section 110. And I urge my colleagues to give 
this language strong and bipartisan support.


              NOAA Weather Radio Coverage in South Dakota

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to update the Senate on my 
efforts to enhance statewide emergency warning systems in South Dakota. 
A person only has to open up a newspaper or watch the evening news to 
learn of the latest plight afflicting some region of the country. In 
recent years, our nation has been continuously ravaged by natural 
disasters, ranging from mudslides in California, massive flooding in 
the Midwest, as well as the annual hurricane and tornado seasons. These 
disasters have resulted in fatalities, enormous property damage, and 
has caused lingering disruptions of entire communities. This has never 
been more evident then this year, as our nation continues to feel the 
effects of the weather anomaly known as El Nino. Since August 1992, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has calculated 
that twenty-one weather-related disasters caused a staggering $90 
billion in damages and resulted in over 900 fatalities.
  South Dakota has by no means escaped Mother Nature's destructive 
path. Last year, South Dakota was plagued by severe weather conditions, 
beginning with record snowfalls in January and February, and the worst 
flooding in the state's history in April and May. Many residents were 
displaced from their homes, and the final cost for clean-up and 
assistance total in the millions of dollars. This year has been no 
different. Heavy rains have once again flooded homes and farmland in 
the northeast part of the state.
  Recently, a tornado touched down with very little warning, completely 
destroying the town of Spencer, South Dakota. The Spencer disaster made 
me realize that additional efforts need to be made in order to provide 
citizens with the earliest possible warning of imminent danger. In my 
efforts to find new ways to update South Dakota's antiquated early 
warning system, it was brought to my attention that an immediate 
solution to upgrading the system would be the use of NOAA Weather 
Radios.
  NOAA Weather Radios broadcast National Weather Service (NWS) 
warnings, watches, forecasts and other hazard information 24 hours a 
day. These NOAA Weather Radios automatically sound an alarm and turn 
themselves on when a severe weather warning or emergency information is 
issued for a specific county. These radios receive a signal that is 
broadcast from NWS transmitters located throughout the state. Seventy 
percent of South Dakota's population currently can receive these NOAA 
Weather Radio warnings. However, due to the rural nature and dispersed 
population of South Dakota, there are not enough NWS radio transmitters 
to provide total NOAA Weather Radio coverage. Many small towns who 
would be the beneficiaries of this warning system do not reside within 
range of one of the five NWS transmitters presently in South Dakota.
  I have been working with NOAA and the South Dakota NWS to examine 
ways in which we can increase NOAA Weather Radio coverage so that 95 
percent of South Dakota's population reside within range of a 
transmitter. I have met with Department of Commerce Under Secretary Dr. 
James Baker, who also is the Administrator of NOAA, to inquire about 
the requirements for attaining almost complete NOAA Weather Radio 
coverage for South Dakota. Following my discussions with Dr. Baker, I 
held several meetings throughout South Dakota with NWS representatives, 
emergency managers, and county officials to ascertain opportunities and 
resources already available in our state to augment our existing NOAA 
Weather Radio coverage.
  The South Dakota NWS expects that eight additional transmitters would 
provide sufficient coverage. The South Dakota NWS currently is 
examining locations to position these additional transmitters, and they 
will be submitting their final report to NOAA and my office forthwith.
  During consideration of the FY 1999 Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary Appropriations bill, I have worked with Senator Gregg and 
Senator Hollings in examining all available options to acquire the 
funding necessary to purchase NOAA Weather Radio transmitters for 
counties that presently do not receive NOAA Weather Radio coverage, and 
to ensure that 95 percent of South Dakota's population is covered by 
NOAA Weather Radio.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe that the modest funding necessary 
to complete this goal would go a long way in augmenting South Dakota's 
NOAA Weather Radio coverage. Although South Dakota is extremely well-
prepared to deal with the impending tornado season, I believe it is my 
responsibility to use every resource available to address the 
consequences of weather-related events and work the losses associated 
with them.
  I look forward to working with Senator Gregg, Senator Hollings and 
the conferees to locate funding for additional NOAA Weather Radio 
transmitters for South Dakota, and I appreciate their willingness to 
work with me on this critically important issue.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a provision contained 
in the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill: ``Grants to Combat 
Violent Crime Against Women on Campuses,'' which provide $10 million a 
year to the Department of Justice for dissemination to colleges. I want 
to thank Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Commerce, Justice, and State, for working with me to ensure that 
this provision becomes law.
  In the 1980s, several high profile violent crimes on campuses raised 
concern about campus crime and security, resulting in the Student 
Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act (C.S.A.) in 1990. Though overall 
crime rates are declining, sexual assaults throughout the United 
States, including on college campuses, are on the rise. Studies tell 
us:
  Twenty percent of college-aged women will be victims of sexual 
assault at some point during their college careers.
  According to a 1995 study, 82 percent of rapes or sexual assaults in 
1992-93 involved a person the victim knew.
  Rape remains the most under reported violent crime in America, with 
approximately 1 in 6 rapes reported to police.
  I am very concerned about sexual assault on college campuses. A 1991 
survey of more than 6,000 college students

[[Page S8868]]

found that 42 percent of women students reported some form of sexual 
assault, including forcible sexual contact, attempted rape, and 
completed rape. This is simply unacceptable and we must do something to 
turn this around.
  We have already taken an important step in addressing violence on 
campuses. Already included in the Higher Education Act are efforts to 
strengthen reporting so that we can get more accurate statistics and a 
national baseline study has been commissioned to look at the policies 
and procedures regarding sexual assault, and how effective they are.
  That's a great start, but it's not enough. It's not enough to simply 
get better statistics. It's not enough to look at how sexual assaults 
are dealt with on campuses. We have to go further. We have to combat 
sexual assault on campuses. We have to end the violence. Even one 
victim of sexual assault is too many.
  A critical component to addressing violence against women on campus 
is good collaboration among those who work with victims of sexual 
assault--campus police, local law enforcement, campus administrators, 
and victim services. We need to improve the coordinated response to 
violence on campuses. We need consistent enforcement and implementation 
of policies regarding sexual assault. We need enhanced communication 
between the campus and local community.
  And in turn, this increased communication will result in more 
accurate statistics. According to a GAO report released last March, one 
of the reasons we don't have good statistics is that campuses have had 
trouble deciding how to include crimes reported to campus officials who 
are not campus police. It's not unusual for crimes on campus to be 
reported to local police and not reported in campus crime reports. 
Improving collaboration within and between campus and off-campus 
agencies will improve the statistics--and therefore give us a more 
realistic picture of violence on campuses. It will also improve 
services and care for victims.
  The grant program we've created--Grants to Combat Violent Crime 
Against Women on Campuses--would make $10 million a year available to 
college campuses so that campus personnel and student organizations 
could work with campus administrators and police. The aim is to improve 
security and investigation methods to combat violence against women on 
campus and to improve victim services. These efforts may include 
partnerships with local criminal justice folks and community victim 
services organizations. Collaborating with community resources is 
especially critical when campuses have minimal victim support services 
and students are isolated from community support systems.
  Some say, ``Why do this federally? Shouldn't schools do this 
themselves?'' But why should we be surprised that schools have yet to 
properly initiate these collaborations when communities haven't even 
started. We need to hold the line on violence everywhere, in schools 
and in communities. And the only way to overcome violence involves 
setting up collaborative programs, and that takes funds. That's what 
the federal government does when it is functioning best--get the ball 
rolling.
  Campus safety is an educational access issue. Violence on campus is a 
huge barrier to education for many students who are in fear of being 
attacked because they feel unprotected on their own campuses. Without 
adequate prevention and protection services, many students--women in 
particular--continue to become victims of attacks, while others remain 
afraid to take night classes or to study late at the library. And 
victims of sexual assault may choose to leave school because they feel 
unprotected.
  How are college women supposed to focus on their educations when one 
out of five college women will be a victim of sexual assault? And if 
it's not themselves personally, it will surely be their roommates, 
their classmates, their sorority sisters, or their friends. College is 
the time when many young people begin to break away from the protection 
of their families, a time of learning--both in the classroom and out--a 
time of freedom. But for many young women, it's also a time of trauma, 
a time of victimization, a time of violence. It's time to make campuses 
safe.
  During the Higher Education Act Markup in the Senate, I reached a 
public agreement with Senator Gregg to work together to develop a 
Campus Safety Collaborative Grant Program. On May 6th, Senator Gregg 
agreed to the language I proposed, creating a $10 million grant program 
administered by the Department of Justice for collaborative grants to 
colleges in order to combat violence on campus. Consequently, the 
Senate Working Group--Senator Jeffords, Kennedy, Coats, and Dodd--
adopted the language into the Manager's Substitute of the Higher 
Education Act. And I am very pleased that Senator Gregg has inserted 
funding for this program into the Commerce/State/Justice Appropriations 
Bill.
  The Wellstone/Gregg Collaborative Grant Program states: ``enough is 
enough. It's time to end the violence.'' I thank Senator Gregg for all 
of his efforts, and I urge my colleagues to support this important 
provision.


                   iowa communications network (icn)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand that the intent of Section 
254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, commonly referred to as the 
Schools, Libraries and Rural Health Care Providers program or the ``E-
Rate'' program, is to provide schools, libraries and health rural care 
providers with access to advanced telecommunications services. I 
believe that the Iowa Communications Network (ICN), a state run and 
owned communications network, as well as similarly situated entities, 
should be able to fully participate in the E-rate program. If the ICN 
is denied that opportunity by the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC), Iowa schools will be unfairly and improperly placed at a 
disadvantage.
  The FCC has said that an entity must be a common carrier to be a 
telecommunications carrier, as that term is used in Section 254(h) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, and to receive payments from the 
universal service fund for providing telecommunications service to 
schools, libraries and rural health care providers. The Universal 
Service Administrative Company is treating the ICN as a carrier for 
purposes of paying into the universal service fund, and ICN is, in 
fact, paying into the fund. The Iowa Utilities board, the local expert 
on this issue, has stated that the ICN functions as a common carrier 
under Iowa law, since the ICN serves all of its customers on equal 
terms and conditions. In light of these facts, does the center believe 
the ICN and other systems like it should be fully eligible to receive 
the benefits of the fund, including those available to 
telecommunications carriers?
  Mr. McCAIN. Given the statement of facts that the Senator has 
presented, it is my belief that it was clearly my intent and the intent 
of Congress that a State network organized and operated like the ICN is 
eligible to receive universal service fund support as a provider of 
telecommunications services under Section 254(h) of the Communications 
Act of 1934.
  In addition to any action taken by the Federal Communications 
Commission, the Commerce Committee intends to further look into this 
issue. This program should treat all involved equally and not give any 
advantage to some while placing others at a disadvantage. Together, 
with the Ranking Member, we will do what is necessary and appropriate 
to deal with this matter.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with Senator McCain, the Chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, and Senator Harkin that a State network organized 
and operated like the Iowa Communications Network is eligible to 
receive universal service fund support as a provider of 
telecommunications services under Section 254(h) of the Communications 
Act of 1934. I will certainly work with Senator McCain and others if 
this issue arises in the Commerce Committee.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate your attention to this important issue.


                          itc regional office

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as the Senator from New Hampshire knows, I 
recently urged the Federal Trade Commission to reconsider their 
decision to close the Boston Regional Office and move all area activity 
for consumer protection and antitrust matters to New York City. The 
Boston office has

[[Page S8869]]

served the people of Maine--and the rest of New England--well for over 
40 years and I am concerned that thee may be adverse consequences as 
the Boston office is uniquely situated in New England to focus on fraud 
and deception issues that target senior citizens, or for 
unsubstantiated advertising claims that affect consumers' pocketbooks.
  The Boston office has been a leader in coordinating efforts to combat 
consumer fraud in the New England area, partnering with regional FBI 
and IRS officials in its efforts to detect fraud on the Internet. The 
office has also worked with Canadian officials on cross-border fraud. 
In addition, the office has been active in addressing false and 
unsubstantiated advertising claims that affect consumers' health and 
safety, for instance stopping a company from claiming that their 
calcium product prevented osteoporosis, or preventing misleading food 
safety claims for a food thawing tray, or stopping a company from 
selling water treatment devices that did not meet the claims made.
  The Boston office has also worked with senior citizens to detect and 
avoid telemarketing fraud specifically targeted at them, and also 
spends a great deal of its time performing other consumer and business 
outreach and educational services, including educational outreach to 
the next generation of consumers--the schoolchildren throughout New 
England.
  I hope that the FTC can be urged to first consider the findings of a 
GAO independent evaluation due out in September before they continue 
with their planned closure of the Boston Office in December.
  Mr. GREGG. I understand your concern about the possible adverse 
effects the closure of the Boston Regional Office could have on the 
people of New England, and while we have not heard a groundswell of 
protest from the public for keeping the office open, the situation may 
well be that the office will not be missed until or if New Englanders 
can no longer get the response they expected when lodging consumer 
complaints. The GAO findings as to the effectiveness of the Boston 
office should certainly be considered by the FTC Commissioners as they 
plan their restructuring plan to maximize their resources to best serve 
the consumers of the U.S., and including the residents of New England. 
I thank the lady Senator from Maine for requesting the GAO Study so 
that the FTC can quantify the best use of their limited resources.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from new Hampshire for all his 
assistance and fine work as Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State 
and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee, and for his effectiveness in 
bringing about the passage of this legislation today.


                               Pfiesteria

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I wish to enter into a colloquy with Senator Gregg in 
order to emphasize the funding needs of North Carolina in regards to 
Pfiesteria and the expertise available to research this toxic microbe 
at N.C. State university.
  Pfiesteria is a toxic microbe that kills fish and causes widespread 
fish disease. Its toxins are known to affect many species of 
commercially important finfish and shellfish.
  Pfiesteria is also highly toxic to people--it causes subtle, but 
serious, impacts on human health. People who are exposed to toxic 
outbreaks of Pfiesteria, where fish are dead or filled with open 
bleeding sores from this creature's toxins, can be seriously hurt as 
well.
  Medical studies have shown that fishermen and other people whom have 
been exposed to these toxic outbreaks have suffered profound memory 
loss and learning disabilities for months afterward. Laboratory workers 
exposed to airborne toxins from Pfiesteria have had other health 
impacts that have lingered for years, suggesting the potential for some 
long-term, lingering health problems for people in estuaries where 
toxic outbreaks occur.
  Pfiesteria's toxins are extremely potent--People are hurt from these 
toxins if they have contact with the water, or even if they breathe the 
air over places where Pfiesteria is attacking fish. These toxins affect 
the human nervous system. They also strip the skin from fish, make deep 
bleeding sores, and suppress the immune system. Small amounts of the 
toxins can make fish very sick in three-five seconds and kill them in 
five minutes.
  Pfiesteria was first discovered in 1991, as a major cause of fish 
kills in the Albemarle--Pamlico Estuary of North Carolina. This estuary 
is of great importance to the commercial fishing industry of this 
country. It is the second largest estuary on the U.S. mainland, and it 
supplies half of the total area used by fish from Maine to Florida as 
nursery ground. Recently, Pfiesteria also affected small numbers of 
fish in the largest estuary on the U.S. mainland, the Chesapeake Bay.
  Pfiesteria, and its close relatives, have been confirmed in the mid-
Atlantic and southeastern U.S. Toxic Pfiesteria and its close relatives 
are believed to be widely distributed in many warm temperate estuaries 
and coastal waters of the country and the world.
  Pfiesteria thrives in polluted waters that are over-enriched in 
nutrients from sewage and other wastes. With exponential human 
population growth a reality for many coastal areas of our country, more 
of our people are living and working near waters where these toxic 
outbreaks occur.
  Pfiesteria has affected the largest and second largest estuaries on 
the U.S. mainland with major economic impacts. Its toxic outbreaks have 
caused millions of dollars of damage to seafood, tourism, and other 
industries in coastal areas. Thus, Pfiesteria has become a high profile 
national issue for human health and the coastal economy. Its toxic 
outbreaks are expected to increase in coming years, associated with 
sewage and other wastes.
  Pfiesteria can have potentially devastating impacts on our fish 
resources. Beyond easily detected fish kills, Pfiesteria affects fish 
at the population level by severely impairing their reproduction, the 
survival of their eggs and young, and their ability to fight disease.
  Pfiesteria's impacts on human health are also serious: Imagine what 
it would be like to appear normal, but to have no idea of where you 
are, to be unable to put words into sentences, or to understand 
English. You have lucid moments in which you realize that something is 
terribly wrong; then you slide back down. As you begin to recover, you 
must take reading lessons to be able to read again. Imagine life style 
changes--that even after you are able to test normally for learning and 
memory, you must compensate because you have lost the ability to 
process information as quickly as you could before the illness 
occurred, and you do not recover it. Imagine not being able to 
strenuously exercise because when you try, you develop severe 
bronchitis or pneumonia. Consider what it would be like to be a fairly 
young, energetic person who must be on antibiotics more than a third of 
the year, five years after being affected . . . what it would be like 
to watch as increasingly potent antibiotics do not help you recover 
from the most recent, nearly constant illness, and to fear the prospect 
of reaching the point at which the most potent antibiotics no longer 
can help. This description characterizes the lives of several 
laboratory workers five to seven years following Pfiesteria toxin 
exposure.
  In North Carolina, Pfiesteria has poisoned and killed millions of 
fish nearly every year from 1991, when scientists first discovered it, 
to the present. Last year, its toxic outbreaks also killed about 30,000 
fish in Chesapeake waters.
  Thus, the Albemarle-Pamlico, which is of such great importance to 
fisheries along the Atlantic Seaboard, has been hit hardest by 
Pfiesteria. North Carolina also has the world's foremost scientific 
expertise on Pfiesteria.
  Dr. JoAnn M. Burkholder is a Professor of Aquatic Botany and Marine 
Sciences at North Carolina State University, and a Pew Fellow. She 
obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in zoology from Iowa State 
University, a Master of Science in aquatic botany from the University 
of Rhode Island, and a Ph.D. in botanical limnology from Michigan State 
University. Dr. Burkholder's research over the past 25 years has 
emphasized the nutritional ecology of algae, dinoflagellates, and 
seagrasses, especially the effects of cultural eutrophication on algal 
blooms and seagrass disappearance. Since co-discovering the toxic 
dinoflagellate,

[[Page S8870]]

Pfiesteria piscidia, in 1991, she has worked to characterize its 
complex life cycle and behavior, its stimulation by nutrient over-
enrichment, and its chronic/sublethal as well as lethal impacts on 
commercially important finfish and shellfish in estuaries and 
aquaculture facilities.
  Howard Glasgow is the Director of North Carolina State University 
Acquatic Botany Laboratories. He obtained a Bachelor of Science degree 
in Chemistry and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Marine Biology from the 
University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Mr. Glasgow is now 
finishing a Ph.D. degree in Marine Sciences from North Carolina State 
University. Before joining the Aquatic Botany Program at NCSU in 1990 
Mr. Glasgow was President and CEO of Glasgow Electronics (North 
Carolina's 2nd largest electronics servicing and engineering 
organization) were in 1989 he was nominated Businessman of the year and 
appointed as a member of Who's Who In U.S. Executives. His scientific 
interests compliment Dr. Burkholder's, and together they have 
characterize Pfiesteria's complex life cycle and behavior. Including 
research describing Pfiesteria's responses to stimulation by nutrient 
over-enrichment, and its chronic/sublethal as well as lethal impacts on 
commercially valuable finfish and shellfish in estuaries and 
aquaculture facilities.
  The researchers who discovered it as a major cause of fish kills in 
estuaries have been working with Pfiesteria at North Carolina State 
University for the past decade. Nearly all of the science articles that 
have been published on Pfiesteria--that is, nearly all of the 
information available about it--has been contributed by that 
laboratory.
  Armed with this formidable expertise, these researchers are poised to 
make the most rapid and significant progress to understand and control 
Pfiesteria, so that our people, and our fisheries, do not continue to 
be seriously hurt by it.
  Despite the demonstrated expertise of this laboratory on the 
Pfiesteria issue, very little federal funding support has reached it.
  These researchers are well-known for their leadership role in 
providing information about Pfiesteria that is critically needed by 
coastal resource managers, policy makers, and fishermen and many other 
folk who utilize our estuaries. Their research laboratory is located in 
the heart of the area where toxic Pfiesteria outbreaks have been most 
severe.
  The funding would also make it possible for the most experienced 
researchers to determine the environmental conditions that promote 
toxic activity by Pfiesteria, so that its toxic production can be 
significantly reduced, and so that we can develop effective management 
strategies to discourage Pfiesteria's growth.
  This funding would make it possible to achieve rapid progress in 
identifying the suite of toxins that produced by Pfiesteria, so that 
improved tools can be developed to diagnose Pfiesteria toxin exposure 
in people, to ensure that seafood is safe for human consumption, and to 
develop medicines to reduce the impacts of Pfiesteria's toxins in 
people and help them recover.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate you bringing this funding issue to my 
attention, and I will work with you on this matter. I agree with you 
that scientific talent available at N.C. State University should be 
funded.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the dedication of researchers at the N.C. 
State University. Howevr, this dedication is not limited to that 
institution, and we also must recognize the expertise and important 
contribution of government and academic scientists throughout the 
Eastern United States in dealing with this problem. For example, 
researchers at the National Ocean Service laboratory at Charleston are 
playing a critical role in developing methods for detecting Pfiesteria 
toxins. The reduction of toxin outbreaks must rely on bringing our 
combined federal, state and academic resources to bear on the problem 
in a cooperative and cost effective manner.


                 jefferson parish communications system

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
Senator Gregg, the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related 
Agencies, Senator Hollings, the Subcommittee's distinguished Ranking 
Member, and Senator Landrieu, my distinguished colleague from 
Louisiana, concerning an important public safety matter in Jefferson 
Parish, Louisiana.
  As my colleagues know, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office has 
gained attention as one of our nation's most innovative and 
accomplished law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, the Sheriff's 
Office's has been stymied in the past by a grossly inadequate and 
outdated conventional 450 MHz UHF radio system that has threatened 
public safety. It simply cannot provide the secure and varied 
communications capabilities needed by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's 
Office in order for it to communicate with various state and federal 
law enforcement agencies.
  To meet its operational needs, the Sheriff's Department has pursued 
the purchase of a new 800 MHz communications system. This new system 
will enable the Sheriff's Office to maintain a high and secure level of 
communication with district personnel and others. Through better 
communication, each officer can patrol his or her reporting areas more 
effectively. The new system will also enable the Sheriff's Office to 
successfully communicate with residents and other public safety 
officials during emergency situations, such as natural disasters, which 
require coordination of state and federal efforts.
  I would like to thank the Subcommittee for recognizing the importance 
of this project and for providing partial funding for this initiative 
in last year's appropriations bill. Unfortunately, Congress only 
provided half of what the Sheriff's Office needs to complete the new 
communications system. Now is the time for Congress to finish its 
commitment to fund this project.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleague in 
thanking the Subcommittee for its action last year in providing funding 
for this vital initiative. I fully agree with my distinguished 
colleague that the completion of the new communications system for the 
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office is a high priority project that 
deserves funding under the FY 1999 COPS Technology Grant Program. The 
Sheriff's Department has committed to at least a 50-50 cost share with 
the federal government for this initiative which can serve as a 
national model. Further, the new communications system will help meet a 
clear public safety need by supporting interoperability and thus 
enhancing communication between the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's 
Department and a number of other local and national law enforcement and 
public safety agencies throughout the region. This interoperability 
will enhance the Sheriff's Department's effectiveness in combating 
crime and responding to area-wide public safety emergencies.
  I would also like to add that funding is needed in order for the 
Sheriff's Office to meet FCC requirements and the procurement 
implementation schedule for the new system.
  Mr. BREAUX. Given the importance of this project, I hope that the 
conferees will agree to provide funding for completion of the enhanced 
radio system for the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Department.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I join my colleague from Louisiana in urging my 
distinguished colleagues to work in conference to finish the federal 
commitment we have made to this much-needed system.
  Mr. GREGG. I would like to thank the Senators from Louisiana for 
understanding that the Subcommittee was unable to accommodate the 
entire request for funding in last year's appropriations bill. Funding 
for the completion of the new communications system for the Jefferson 
Parish Sheriff's Office in Jefferson Parish is a project worthy of 
attention in conference this year.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senators from Louisiana have highlighted an 
important issue. I agree with the distinguished Chairman that the 
completion of the communications system for the Jefferson Parish 
Sheriff's Office is a project that deserves consideration and I will 
give this matter my attention in conference.
  Mr. BREAUX. The support from the distinguished Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee in this matter is greatly appreciated.

[[Page S8871]]

                    data survey of narragansett bay

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg.
  On page 93 of the report accompanying the FY99 Commerce, Justice, 
State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act (S. Rept. 105-235) is a 
provision appropriating $1 million for a data survey of Narragansett 
Bay, to be conducted in conjunction with the Rhode Island Coastal 
Resources Management Council (CRMC). I would like to outline to the 
chairman my understanding of the purpose of these funds, and request 
his concurrence.
  The $1 million appropriated for this project is to be used by CRMC 
for a Geographic Information System (GIS) software program to develop 
digital data on Narragansett Bay's resource conditions, availability 
and use. Advanced sonar technology would be employed to assess the 
Bay's bottom sediment types, habitat and use conflicts. A previous EPA 
study, the Narragansett Bay Critical Resource mapping project, was 
unable to collect data on bottom habitat, due to the limitations of 
research methods used at the time.
  The data collected by this project would provide CRMC with 
information that, combined with input from other sources, would be 
helpful in determining appropriate sites for aquaculture leases, a 
function currently hindered by inadequate data and ongoing disputes 
over use. The data would also be useful in making several other 
decisions related to marine management issues. In addition, the project 
is intended to provide for studies relating to questions regarding 
environmentally sound and economically sustainable forms of aquaculture 
by the University of Rhode Island's Partnership for the Coastal 
Environment.
  It is intended that the data collected and developed under this 
project not only be utilized by CRMC, but will also be made available 
to other Federal and State agencies as well as private fishery and 
conservation groups. I would like to briefly describe some of the 
entities that could potentially benefit from this data and ought to 
have access to it.
  First, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Rhode 
Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) could use the data 
to identify existing essential fish habitats (EFH) not only in 
Narragansett Bay, but also in nearby Rhode Island and Block Island 
sounds. In addition, the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation 
(RIEDC) ought to have access to the data in order to help establish 
suitable shipping lanes for larger vessels serving the cargo port at 
Quonset Point. Further, the data could be useful to NOAA's National 
Estuary Research Reserve NERR in selecting eelgrass restoration sites, 
identifying areas impacted by fishing gear, and areas suitable for 
habitat restoration. Finally, the data should be accessible to 
interested private fishery and conservation groups, such as the Rhode 
Island Shellfishermen's Association, the Ocean State Fisherman's 
Association and Save the Bay.
  Let me also point out what this project is not intended for. This 
initiative is not aimed at giving preference to one group or interest 
over another in the use of, or issuance of permits in, Narragansett Bay 
and other marine resources in Rhode Island. Instead, it is simply 
intended to provide State and Federal authorities with the best 
possible information to assist them in making the most responsible 
public policy decisions not just on aquaculture permitting, but also on 
a variety of matters involving our precious natural resources.
  I would ask Chairman Gregg if he concurs that the description I have 
provided on this funding is the Committee's intent?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, that is correct.


               pathogen research related to ballast water

  Mr. KOHL. I would like to thank the Senator from New Hampshire, the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State 
Appropriations, for his work on this bill. In particular, I appreciate 
his efforts to maintain funding for the Sea Grant College Program, 
which facilitates so much valuable research in the Great Lakes and 
other coastal areas of this country.
  As this process moves forward, it is my hope that the conferees 
working on this bill will ultimately support and reiterate the language 
included in the House Committee report related to pathogen research and 
the Sea Grant College Program. Specifically, this language encourages 
the agency ``to conduct research related to the public health risks 
posed by pathogens released in ballast water discharges in ports around 
the country.''
  While we know that pathogens from other regions of the world are 
sometimes present in the ballast tanks of ships that enter our ports, 
we have very little information about the public health risks posed by 
those pathogens. It is important that we improve our state of knowledge 
in this regard. The Sea Grant College Program and its network of about 
300 universities are appropriately positioned to undertake this 
research. They are in this position due to their ongoing research on 
aquatic nuisance species and ballast water, as well as their 
affiliation with human health experts at their network universities.
  Would the Senator from New Hampshire agree that this research on 
public health risks posed by pathogens in ballast water is important, 
and efforts should be made through the Sea Grant College Program to 
undertake such human health risk studies?
  Mr. GREGG. I would concur with the Senator from Wisconsin that it is 
important to improve the state of understanding about the potential 
human health risks of pathogens that enter U.S. waters via ballast 
water, and that the Sea Grant College Program is an appropriate agency 
to conduct and facilitate such research.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the Senator's comments, and understanding of 
these concerns. Will the Senator be willing to support the inclusion of 
language in the conference report with regard to such research?
  Mr. GREGG. While I can make no promises with regard to the final 
outcome of the conference, I will work with the Senator to address 
these concerns in the conference report.


                        safe schools initiative

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would ask to engage the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, in a brief colloquy regarding a portion of the 
report which accompanies the bill, calling on the COPS office to direct 
$175 million to the Safe Schools Initiative, for the hiring of 
additional police officers to improve the safety of our school 
children. I strongly support the Committee's effort, lead by Chairman 
Gregg and ranking member Hollings, to meet this highly important duty. 
I just wanted to get a clarification about the Committee's intent--is 
it the Committee's intent that D.A.R.E. police officers would be 
eligible to be funded under the Safe Schools Initiative?
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's concern on this subject. The 
Committee believes that D.A.R.E. police officers would clearly quality 
under the Safe Schools Initiative. However, we are not yet ready to 
increase the D.A.R.E program above the FY 1998 level which has already 
been approved by the Office of Justice Programs. Of course, such 
decisions would be made at the local level--they decide the types of 
community police officers which would best accomplish the goals of the 
Safe Schools Initiative.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator for his interest in this matter and 
for his clarification of the Committee report.


                     Western Slope Drug Enforcement

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President. I seek recognition to raise an important 
issue with the manager of this bill, Senator Gregg.
  One area of growing concern in my home state of Colorado is the 
production, distribution and use of methamphetamines. To help law 
enforcement address this problem, I pushed for designation and funding 
of the Rocky Mountain HIDTA which is operating in many regions of the 
state, and secured additional funding in the Treasury subcommittee for 
a methamphetamine initiative through the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. I also have supported budget increases for the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, but believe that agency can do much more, 
especially to help Western Colorado.
  The Western Slope of Colorado is becoming a major drug transit point 
because of its close proximity to I-70, its easy access to trains, 
buses and planes,

[[Page S8872]]

and the large geographic areas which law enforcement officers have to 
patrol. The scope of the methamphetamine problem in this area recently 
was underscored by the Grand Junction Chief of Police, Gary Konzak. 
Chief Konzak informed me that ``the quality of life of this city and 
the safety of its citizens are in peril if significant and organized 
law enforcement resources are not deployed soon to combat this 
menace.''
  Based on his almost 30 years of law enforcement in Chicago before 
coming to Colorado, Chief Konzak believes neighborhoods and communities 
in Western Colorado are vulnerable to degradation similar to what he 
witnessed when crack cocaine arrived in the Chicago area in the early 
and mid 1980s.
  Mr. President, in Colorado the DEA operates a regional office in 
Denver and recently established a field office in Glenwood Springs. 
However, I believe the DEA can do much more to assist police chiefs and 
sheriffs in Mesa County, Montrose County and other counties on the 
Western Slope.
  The bill we are considering today includes a significant increase in 
the DEA's budget for the coming fiscal year. The bill also includes 
$24.5 million and 100 agents specifically for the Methamphetamine 
Initiative to target and investigate methamphetamine trafficking, 
production and abuse.
  Chief Konzak and other law enforcement officials throughout the 
Western Slope believe there is an urgent need for a DEA presence, 
through a field office or permanently assigned agents. I strongly 
support their request for assistance from the DEA and ask the Chairman 
for his support.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the senior Senator from Colorado for raising this 
important issue and for his work on the Commerce, Justice, State 
subcommittee to make DEA funding a main priority. I can appreciate his 
concern for the tragic ways methamphetamines can ravage communities, 
and commit to working with him in urging the DEA to establish a field 
office on the Western Slope of Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the chairman for his support and look forward 
to working with him to address the methamphetamine problem on 
Colorado's Western Slope.


                        new jersey state police

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to confirm my understanding of 
a provision that will be included in the manager's amendment to the 
Commerce, Justice and State appropriation bill. I had proposed an 
amendment that would provide $1 million to equip New Jersey State 
Police vehicles with video cameras. It is my understanding, and I want 
to confirm this with Mr. Gregg, the distinguished Floor Manager of this 
legislation, that these funds will be made available by reallocating $1 
million to the COPS Program. That $1 million would then be directed to 
the New Jersey State Police for video cameras in its vehicles, in the 
same manner that COPS Technology Program funds are directed to various 
programs on page 61 of the Committee Report to this legislation, e.g., 
$935,000 for the Missoula County, MT, mobile data terminals. Is my 
understanding correct?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is it also the understanding of the Senator that he 
will support the $1 million for the New Jersey State Police in a 
Conference Committee with the House?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State for his 
help with this matter. I appreciate his cooperation and I commend him 
for all of his hard work on this legislation. I know that it is 
difficult to accommodate the various requests from colleagues, and I 
think he and his excellent staff do it with grace and understanding. I 
also want to thank Senator Hollings, the Ranking Member on the 
Subcommittee, it is always a pleasure to work with him and his fine 
staff.
  The video cameras that will be funded under this provision will help 
the police document evidence which will assist prosecutors and also 
protect the innocent. With these cameras in place, people who are 
pulled over will think twice before acting violently toward the police. 
Additionally, the cameras will ensure that the troopers are following 
proper procedures when they make traffic stops.
  In my home State of New Jersey, we must find ways to help resolve 
disputes and ease tensions between the police and the public they are 
sworn to protect. These cameras are an important step forward.
  Again, I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for their help in 
securing this critical funding.


        organization for international economic and cooperation

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to address one of the 
international organizations funded in the Commerce, Justice, State, and 
the Judiciary Appropriations bill that is currently pending. I speak of 
the Organization for International Economic and Cooperation, or OECD, 
as it is known.
  Mr. President, we live in an era where the pubic rightly demands both 
less government and higher quality services. This is an era where 
government downsizing and reform are expected of not just federal, 
state, and local governments, but also to international organizations.
  One organization that has understood that less is better when it 
comes to government is OECD. The OECD was founded in 1961 as a 
successor to the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, which 
was formed to administer the Marshall Plan. As the situation in Europe 
has changed, so has the work of the OECD evolved. Its purpose today is 
to contribute to the world economy through economic cooperation among 
its member nations and beyond.
  The OECD works on issues such as regulatory reform, electronic 
commerce and tax reform. With its first-rate studies and current 
information, OECD helps the United States and its other member nations 
to stay ahead of the curve in the fast-changing global economy. Its 
work offers policy makers important insight on what the United States 
can do to benefit from globalization and general economic 
liberalization.
  At the same time, the OECD has understood that it, too, has to 
change. On its own initiative, the OECD has undertaken a significant 
process of reform, committing to cut its overall spending by ten 
percent. It is well on its way toward achieving this goal.
  The distinguished Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the 
Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee has put an emphasis on getting 
all international organizations to cut administrative costs. The 
pending bill reflects reductions in funding to those organizations that 
are above 15 percent in total administrative costs. Based on the State 
Department data available to the Subcommittee--a 1997 report which 
includes data only through 1995--the Subcommittee has reduced funding 
for the OECD. The OECD has indicated to me that its administrative 
costs are now only about 12.4 percent of its budget.
  I urge the Department of State to provide the Subcommittee with more 
recent data so that those international organizations that have reduced 
their overall administrative costs can be appropriately reviewed for FY 
1999 funding. For organizations that have pursued reform, such as the 
OECD, I hope the Subcommittee will reconsider the Administration's 
budget request for inclusion in the final bill.


                      waterline extension project

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would first like to thank my 
distinguished colleagues, the Chairman Senator Gregg and Ranking Member 
Senator Hollings, for their leadership and superb management of this 
bill. I would like to take a moment to express my support for a matter 
of great importance to me, specifically obtaining funding for a 
Waterline Extension Project in Georgia. The project would involve 
providing $1,000,000 in Economic Development Administration (EDA) 
Public Works (Title I) funds for construction of an extended 16-inch 
water line (16,000 L.F.) along Macon Road (U.S. Highway 80) from 
Muscogee County into Talbot County. I understand that a proposal for 
this project was submitted to the EDA, but the application was denied. 
Apparently, the application was rejected because the project did not 
identify any, or a significant number of, near term new jobs. However, 
I have been assured that, although one industry alone would not fulfill 
the new job requirement, the waterline would allow several new 
industries to locate in the area which will

[[Page S8873]]

more than meet the new job requirement. In fact, there have been 
commitments in writing from three businesses of their intent to locate 
in the newly developed industrial site. Talbot County is one of the 
most economically depressed counties in Georgia. In fact, in 1994, 
Talbot County had approximately 25% of its population living below the 
poverty line, ranking near the bottom of the state. If funded, the 
waterline would provide the vital infrastructure needed to serve 
potential industrial sites located in Talbot County and bring with it 
much needed opportunities for employment in well paying jobs. Senator 
Hollings, I understand that Committee policy prohibits earmarking EDA 
funding for individual projects. Is that accurate?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. My colleague is correct.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. I understand that although projects 
are not earmarked, language is provided in the bill about projects 
intended to provide favorable recommendations to the EDA, if the 
project meets EDA criteria. Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Georgia is correct.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. I understand that the EDA has 
stated a willingness to meet with County and City officials to review 
and reconsider the proposal at any time. Given the importance of this 
project and the apparent discrepancy between the information provided 
by local officials and the information cited by EDA in rejecting the 
proposal, I urge that the EDA give prompt consideration of any such 
request for a meeting. Further, assuming that the job-creating 
potential of the waterline Extension Project can be verified, I ask the 
distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member if they would agree that this 
is the kind of project Congress intended for EDA to give favorable 
consideration to in its public works construction program?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. With the information provided, I believe the Senator's 
understanding is correct.
  Mr. CLELAND. I, along with residents of Talbot and Muscogee Counties, 
thank my colleagues for their understanding and support and believe 
that this project would provide a critical economic boost to this 
region.


                   swordfish conservation initiative

  Mr. GREGG. I wish to enter into a colloquy with Senator Faircloth in 
order to address his concerns about the conservation of swordfish.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service is in the process of 
implementing several management measures to ensure sustainable use of 
the Atlantic swordfish resource. The rampant importation of undersized 
Atlantic swordfish harvested by foreign fishing vessels is one of the 
most serious problems facing domestic and international management of 
this highly migratory species. The Congress recognizes the significance 
of this effort and, through the leadership of Senator Faircloth, this 
appropriations subcommittee provided $500,000 in this fiscal year for 
NMFS to fully address this specific concern.
  The Committee intends that NMFS will utilize this particular 
appropriation to implement changes in our current system in order to 
prevent importation of Atlantic swordfish not harvested in a manner 
that is consistent with recommendations under the International 
Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
  I ask my colleague from North Carolina to elaborate upon the intent 
of the Committee in its initiative to address Atlantic swordfish 
importation problems.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. The United States has taken a firm conservation 
position with respect to ICCAT management recommendations. Our domestic 
fishermen comply with a tightly managed quota designed to rebuild this 
stock through international cooperation. Through efforts of the NMFS 
and our fishermen, we harvest only the annual amount specified for the 
American fishery, and we abide by the minimum swordfish size 
requirement of 33 lbs. Indeed, despite our harvest of less than five 
percent of the total Atlantic swordfish catch, the United States is 
working within the system to manage this resource in a sustainable 
fashion.
  Unfortunately, however, not all countries are playing by the rules. 
Several foreign nations are allowing the harvest of swordfish smaller 
than the American minimum legal size. Further, this ``black market'' 
swordfish often time find its way into our restaurants and fish 
markets, and we are effectively undermining our resource rebuilding 
programs and our ability to compete in the marketplace by allowing this 
situation to continue.
  I concur with my colleague from New Hampshire that it is time for us 
to reign in this illegal activity--to enforce our fishery regulations 
equally across the board--and protect our domestic fishermen who are 
operating just as we have asked them to. The intent of the Congress in 
the swordfish conservation initiative is to arm NMFS with the financial 
resources necessary to develop a program to restrict the importation of 
Atlantic swordfish that are below the United States minimum size. I 
understand NMFS is examining a number of possible management options, 
including dealer permits, country of origin documentation requirements, 
and the designation of restricted ports of entry for Atlantic swordfish 
to facilitate inspections.
  I encourage them to continue in their deliberations, communicate 
fully with our fishermen, and implement a program to address our 
resource and equitability concerns.


                        oecd development center

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the OECD Development Center works to 
promote market-opening reforms in developing nations and has provided 
valuable research and resources to policy makers and analysts in 
developed nations and developing countries alike. the OECD Development 
Center was established at the initiative of the United States in 1962, 
and we have played a leadership role in the Center ever since. I 
believe it is important to note the OECD Development Center's 
contribution as a bridge between OECD nations and emerging economies 
around the world.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate and understand the remarks of the Senator 
from Texas in support of the OECD Development Center and the important 
role it performs.


                        broadcasting activities

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss the funding 
levels for international broadcasting in this legislation. I am 
disappointed by the considerable reductions in the Senate bill in this 
account. We have important priorities in this account. Radio Free Asia, 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and the Voice of America are 
critical instruments of American foreign policy. For a relatively 
modest cost, these broadcasting agencies project American values and 
promote American ideals. RFE/RL was of critical importance during the 
Cold War in undermining the tight control on information imposed by the 
communist states in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Although the Cold War 
is over, RFE/RL still have an important function in a region where 
independent media are not yet firmly established, and, in many 
countries, is barely adequate. I authored the legislation in 1994 which 
created Radio Free Asia--which broadcasts news about local events to 
China and the other dictatorships in the region--and I want to ensure 
that it has the necessary resources so that it can perform its 
function.
  It is my understanding that Committee has assumed that the bill fully 
funds Radio Free Asia at the requested level of $19.4 million. Is that 
the understanding of the Chairman?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. I appreciate that clarification. I understand that the 
Chairman and Ranking Member have a very tight allocation this year, but 
I hope that they will do what they can to try to restore the funds that 
were reduced in the Committee mark for broadcasting activities.
  Mr. GREGG. I will say to the Senator from Delaware that I will do my 
best, within the allocation, to provide additional resources to this 
account.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I share the view of the chairman that we will do what 
we can on this account.
  Mr. BIDEN. Additionally, I would note that the Committee report makes 
reference to the fact that the statute authorizing Radio Free Asia 
provides for a sunset a year from now. That is true, but the Senator 
from New Hampshire should understand that, in my view, it is quite 
likely that Radio Free Asia will be reauthorized next year. I plan to 
introduce such legislation early

[[Page S8874]]

in the next Congress, and I would expect that it would be included as 
part of next year's Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
  Mr. GREGG. I am grateful for that information from the Senator from 
Delaware. I know that he is a strong advocate of Radio Free Asia as 
well as the other broadcasting services. I look forward to working with 
him on this issue as the bill goes to conference and in the coming 
years.


               joint marine aquaculture education project

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Gregg, in a colloquy.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would be pleased to join the Senator from 
Maine in a colloquy.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, S. 2260 provides funding for the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to support a joint marine 
aquaculture education project in Maine. The committee report lists the 
project sponsor in Maine as the Island Institute, but the actual 
sponsor is the Teel Cove Sea Farm. While Teel Cove is associated with 
the Island Institute, the two organizations are separate entities. In 
this case, Teel Cove is the chief sponsor of the project in Maine and 
should be listed as the recipient in the bill or report. I believe that 
this was the committee's intention. I would like to ask Senator Gregg 
if his understanding of this matter is consistent with mine, and also 
whether he would be willing to take appropriate action to ensure that a 
correction will be made and Teel Cove will be designated as the project 
sponsor in Maine.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Snowe on this point. 
Teel Cove is the intended recipient and I will make sure that this 
matter is clarified before the conference on this legislation is 
completed.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for his statement and 
his agreement to address this matter. I would also like to ask Senator 
Gregg if my understanding is correct that the bill before us provides 
the Administration's full request for funding of the State of Maine's 
Atlantic salmon recovery plan.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this bill does provide the Administration's 
requested level of funding for the Maine Atlantic salmon recovery plan.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Gregg, for his clarifications and assistance.


                   fishing capacity reduction program

  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Subcommittee Chairman for including $50,000 in 
the Committee Appropriations report for a potential loan to fund an 
innovative fishing capacity reduction program on the Pacific Coast. The 
program, if it receives the approval of fishermen on the West Coast, 
would be the first capacity reduction program to be ultimately funded 
by the fishing industry itself.
  To comply with the requirements of section 504(b) of the Federal 
Credit Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 661c), an appropriation is required to 
cover the potential cost to the government for a debt obligation. My 
request assumed that the maximum potential cost to the government 
likely to be determined for the loan would be one percent, which would 
allow a loan of $5 million based on the $50,000 appropriated by the 
Committee. It is my understanding that if the Secretary of Commerce 
finds that the potential default rate for the loan is less than one 
percent, the loan amount would be accordingly higher than the 
$5,000,000 authorized by the report. For example, if the potential 
default rate for a future Pacific Coast buyback is determined to be 
one-half of one percent, the loan could be as high as $10,000,000 based 
on the appropriated $50,000. Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct.
  Mr. WYDEN. Further, I would like to clarify to the Chairman in my 
request, I was seeking credit authority for a maximum loan of $35 
million. Is it the Chairman's understanding that if the Secretary of 
Commerce finds there is a potential default rate low enough for a loan 
of $35 million, that a loan of $35 million could be made?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, this is my understanding.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chairman for this clarification and his 
recognition of the opportunity presented by the Pacific Coast plan.


 national oceanic and atmospheric administration (noaa) weather radio 
                        coverage in south dakota

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, recently, a tornado touched down with 
very little warning, completely destroying the town of Spencer, South 
Dakota. The Spencer disaster made me realize that every effort needs to 
be made in order to provide citizens with the earliest possible warning 
of imminent danger. In my efforts to find new ways to update South 
Dakota's antiquated early warning system, it was brought to my 
attention that an immediate solution to upgrading the system would be 
the use of NOAA Weather Radios.
  NOAA Weather Radios broadcast National Weather Service (NWS) 
warnings, watches, forecasts and other hazard information 24 hours a 
day. These NOAA Weather Radios automatically sound an alarm and turn 
themselves on when a severe weather warning or emergency information is 
issued for a specific county. These radios receive a signal that is 
broadcast from NWS transmitters located throughout the state. Seventy 
percent of South Dakota's population currently can receive these NOAA 
Weather Radio warnings. However, due to the rural nature and dispersed 
population of South Dakota, there are not enough NWS radio transmitters 
to provide total NOAA Weather Radio coverage. Many small towns who 
would be the beneficiaries of this warning system do not reside within 
range of one of the five NWS transmitters presently in South Dakota.
  I have been working with NOAA and the South Dakota NWS to examine 
ways in which we can increase NOAA Weather Radio coverage so that 95 
percent of South Dakota's population reside within range of a 
transmitter. I have met with Department of Commerce Under Secretary Dr. 
James Baker, who also is the Administrator of NOAA, to inquire about 
the requirements for attaining almost complete NOAA Weather Radio 
coverage for South Dakota. Following my discussions with Dr. Baker, I 
held several meetings throughout South Dakota with NWS representatives, 
emergency managers, and county officials to ascertain opportunities and 
resources already available in our state to augment our existing NOAA 
Weather Radio coverage.
  The South Dakota NWS expects that eight additional transmitters would 
provide sufficient coverage. The South Dakota NWS currently is 
examining locations to position these additional transmitters, and they 
will be submitting their final report to NOAA and my office forthwith.
  I hope I will have an opportunity to work with members of the 
conference committee for the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
Appropriations bill in order to acquire the funding necessary to 
purchase NOAA Weather Radio transmitters for counties that presently do 
not receive NOAA Weather Radio coverage, and to ensure that 95% 
population of South Dakota's population is covered by NOAA Weather 
Radio.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe that the modest funding necessary 
to complete this goal would go a long way in augmenting South Dakota's 
NOAA Weather Radio coverage. Although South Dakota is extremely well-
prepared to deal with the impending tornado season, I believe it is my 
responsibility to use every resource available to address the 
consequences of weather-related events and work the losses associated 
with them.
  I ask Senator Hollings, do you support my efforts to enhance 
statewide emergency warning systems in South Dakota through the 
acquisition of additional NOAA Weather Radio transmitters?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, I support the efforts of the Senator from South 
Dakota, and I appreciate your bringing the situation in South Dakota to 
the Senate's attention. I will work to locate funding for this 
important initiative.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Senator for his support. With the prediction 
of a highly volatile hurricane season expected in your region of the 
country, I am sure the Senator is aware of the immediate warning that 
NOAA Weather Radios provide emergency managers

[[Page S8875]]

and residents of his state in preparing for an oncoming storm, and how 
invaluable this early warning is in mitigating the loss of lives and 
property. Mr. Chairman, will you support my proposed efforts to 
increase NOAA Weather Radio coverage in South Dakota?
  Mr. GREGG. I will work with Senator Hollings and Senator Johnson to 
locate funding for additional NOAA Weather Radio transmitters for South 
Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Chairman for his support, and I deeply 
appreciate your and the Senator from South Carolina's willingness to 
work with me on this critically important issue.


                     shea's performing arts center

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleagues, Senator D'Amato, and the distinguished managers of the 
Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill. Mr. President, we 
have in Buffalo a wonderful old theater, known now as Shea's Performing 
Arts Center. It opened in 1926 as motion pictures made their ascendance 
in the nation's entertainment industry, and was also the site of 
numerous stage productions. As Buffalo's population shifted to the 
suburbs or elsewhere, Shea's fell on hard times and was almost 
demolished in the 1970s. But citizens banded together, formed a non-
profit group, and began restoration efforts. Today Shea's is on the 
National Register of Historic Places and is a cornerstone of Buffalo's 
downtown. I would ask the managers of the bill if they would encourage 
the Economic Development Administration to consider an application from 
Shea's Performing Arts Center and provide a grant if warranted.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I also hope that the Economic Development Administration 
will see the merit in awarding a grant to Shea's. In addition to 
restoration and preservation efforts, the theater needs to be expanded 
backstage so that it can accommodate the large touring musicals and 
other productions that people would flock to downtown Buffalo to see. 
If Shea's were able to accommodate and present the biggest and best in 
live entertainment, it would be a tremendous boost for Buffalo's 
economy. I too hope my colleagues will encourage EDA to give every 
consideration to an application from Shea's.
  Mr. GREGG. As I would like to be of assistance to my colleagues from 
New York, I do encourage the EDA to consider such an application from 
Shea's Performing Arts Center within all applicable procedures and 
guidelines, and to fund it if warranted.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I too suggest that EDA consider and fund an application 
from Shea's if the application has merit and meets all applicable 
procedures and guidelines.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am deeply appreciative of my distinguished colleagues 
from New Hampshire and South Carolina.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I also thank my colleagues for their help.


               Erie, PA, National Weather Service Office

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the Senate Appropriations Committee's decision to provide funding to 
reopen the Erie National Weather Service office at least in part 
starting this Fall. Congressman English and I were in Erie in April for 
meetings with local officials and residents on this important issue and 
our appropriations success is a direct result of that visit. During 
that visit, I once again heard the troubling litany of severe weather 
incidents in Erie, which include blizzards and tornadoes which went 
unreported and put thousands of residents at risk.
  I am pleased that Chairman Gregg was able to fulfill part of my 
request regarding the National Weather Service's activities in the Erie 
area and wanted to confirm with him that it is our understanding that 
pursuant to the language in this bill, the agency will undertake 
mitigation activities which will include having Weather Service 
personnel in the Erie office 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, for 6 
months beginning October 1, 1998.
  I will continue to focus with Congressman English and Senator 
Santorum on our goal of reopening the Erie office permanently and 
ensuring that the office is equipped with the most advanced forecasting 
equipment available in the federal government. The six-month reopening 
of the office represents a good interim fix and I thank the Chairman 
for his help.
  Mr. GREGG. I concur with my colleague from Pennsylvania as to my 
understanding of the agency's intentions. The bill before us provides 
sufficient funds to reopen the Erie office for six months on an around-
the-clock staffing basis as part of the effort to mitigate any 
degradation of service since the Erie office was closed in 1996. I was 
pleased to be able to provide at least some of the funds he requested 
and look forward to working with him on this issue as this bill moves 
to conference with the House of Representatives.


                         essential fish habitat

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I wish to engage the Senator from New 
Hampshire, the Subcommittee chairman of Commerce, Justice, State and 
the Judiciary and the Senator from South Carolina, the Ranking Member 
of that Subcommittee in a colloquy.
  As chairman of the Drinking Water Fisheries and Wildlife Subcommittee 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am concerned that the 
National Marine Fisheries Service's guidelines on essential fish 
habitat have exceeded the scope of congressional intent. In 1996, 
Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service's interpretation 
of a provision in that Act concerns me, the States and a diverse range 
of affected businesses and citizens throughout the country.
  Mr. GREGG. The intent of the original provision was to establish 
procedures to gather information on essential fish habitat, wherever 
possible encouraging interagency coordination when other administration 
programs complemented the EFH goal.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. As my distinguished colleague points out, the 
original provision was limited, focusing on increased efficiency and, 
wherever appropriate, information coordination. Congress did not intend 
to authorize a provision that created a sweeping new regulatory 
program.
  Concerns have been raised about the complexity of the NMFS 
``essential fish habitat'' regulations not add a new level of 
regulation in addition to what is required under the endangered Species 
Act.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the concerns of the Senator. The report 
accompanying this bill raises issues about the essential fish habitat 
program.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am aware of the report language accompanying the 
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill, and I 
did not object to the inclusion of that language. The EFH provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act are intended to address growing concerns over 
the loss of habitat essential to the health of marine fisheries, 
including many commercially and recreationally valuable stocks.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. As envisioned by NMFS, essential fish habitat covers 
much of the coastal, marine, and estuarine waters of the United States, 
and it includes some inland habitat for anadromous species. The broad 
definition of ``essential fish habitat'' raised concerns that NMFS will 
apply the EFH virtually everywhere.
  In addition, serious concerns have been raised by nonfishing 
interests regarding their lack of participation in the development of 
these guidelines. Nonfishing interests were not heavily involved in the 
development of the guidelines. But when NMFS issued the proposal, a 
coalition of groups felt that their participation should have been 
solicited.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding that since the NMFS regulation was 
proposed, that community has offered comments. Given the scope of the 
EFH proposal, and the wide-ranging impacts on nonfishing entities, I 
believe the agency should take the view of all entities into 
consideration.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I agree. They object to the scope of the proposed EFH 
program and are concerned that it will subject activities, including 
land development, agriculture, water supply, forestry, and mining, to 
the jurisdiction of the Fishery Management Councils under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Ideally, these 
guidelines, along with the comments submitted by nonfishing interests, 
will be thoroughly reviewed and, if necessary, republished

[[Page S8876]]

by the NMFS. Congress should carefully watch this situation.
  Mr. GREGG. The report accompanying this bill directs the General 
Accounting Office to review the National Marine Fishery Service's 
implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the essential 
fish habitat provisions. Congress should receive a thorough report on 
this matter, and I look forward to receiving the results of the GAO's 
review.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the chairman.


                        Pharmacy Record Keeping

  Mr. HATCH. For some time, I have been disturbed over reports that the 
Drug Enforcement Administration has been imposing multiple, substantial 
fines for what amount to minor pharmacy record-keeping violations. I am 
referring to cases in which no unauthorized person obtain control of 
controlled substances.
  Violations of sections 842(a)(5) and (10) of the Controlled 
Substances Act can result in penalties of $25,000 per violation. I 
understand that between 1989 and 1997, $50 million in such fines have 
been assessed.
  These provisions of the law adopt a strict liability standard for all 
record-keeping violations, even a minor error such as a mis-recording 
of a zipcode, or the insertion of a ditto mark.
  While we all favor strong regulation of controlled substances, a rule 
of reason should prevail here.
  For that reason, I am supportive of the thrust of the language 
contained in sections 118 and 199 of S. 2260.
  Section 118 adopts a ``knowingly'' standard, rather than a strict 
liability standard.
  Section 119 gives the courts discretion in assessing a fine, unlike 
current law which is not permissive. In addition, this section lowers 
the maximum penalty per occurrence from $25,000 to $500.
  In combination, sections 118 and 119 may provide more correction than 
is warranted. For example, by adding a scienter requirement, while at 
the same time lowering the maximum fine, we may be creating an 
atmosphere in which sloppy record keeping is encouraged.
  Overall, however, I am supportive of the work of the Committee in 
this area of long-standing concern to the Congress, drug wholesalers, 
pharmacies and drug stores. We should not be using this part of the 
statute as a ``cash cow'' to line the government's coffers.
  I will not offer an amendment to these sections at this time. 
However, I am hopeful that I may work with my colleagues in the Senate 
and the House to address these concerns in conference.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the concerns raised by the Senator from Utah. 
As you know, we inserted this provision after learning of several cases 
in which large fines were imposed for realtively minor violations of 
the Controlled Substances Act. We will be glad to work with you and our 
House colleagues during the conference, and we appreciate your 
forebearance in not offering an amendment at this time.


                    courthouse security renovations

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished Chairman 
of the subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding the very important 
issue of Federal courthouse security. As I am sure the Chairman is 
aware, each day Federal courthouses across the country must temporarily 
detain thousands of prisoners awaiting trials, hearings and interviews. 
The facilities must be secure because the courthouses are occupied by 
members of the public and the judiciary. For example, the U.S. 
Marshal's Service, which oversees Federal courthouse security, 
recommends that larger courthouses be equipped with a secure garage 
area referred to as a ``sally port'' where prisoners can be transferred 
to the courthouse by van or bus, a detention facility where prisoners 
can be temporarily held, secure interview rooms where prisoners can be 
questioned by Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and if possible some separate 
secure hall or corridor through which a violent or dangerous prisoner 
can be transferred to a courtroom apart from the public and the 
judiciary.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the security needs of the various 
courthouses.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that many of the 
older Federal courthouses do not have proper facilities to adequately 
secure prisoners and assure the safety of the public and the judiciary. 
For example, in my own state of Michigan the U.S. Courthouse in 
Detroit, which is a large older courthouse, is in desperate need of 
security improvements. The building contains no sally ports, and 
prisoners are transferred from vans and buses in the same modern 
ventilation systems that control the spread of air bourne diseases such 
as tuberculosis. Also, there are no interview rooms in which defendants 
or prisoners acting as witnesses for the Government can be questioned 
by Assistant U.S. Attorneys or their own counsel. This has led to 
difficulties for the local U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Marshal, who has 
been forced to use extra members of his staff that are needed elsewhere 
to instead guard meeting rooms while the interviews take place. 
Moreover, the Detroit courthouse has no secure corridor to transfer 
prisoners from the detention cells to the courtrooms so that dangerous 
prisoners must be transferred in the same halls that are used by the 
public. Finally Mr. Chairman, the Marshal's Service has informed me 
that there is also a problem with many newly constructed courthouses, 
which cannot be opened because insufficient money is available to equip 
the building with a minimum level of security systems such as security 
cameras and monitors. I want to commend the Chairman and ranking member 
for appropriating money specifically for courthouses in Detroit and 
Grand Rapids. However, I would ask that more money be made available 
for courthouse security projects.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the problems you have raised with respect to 
courthouse security, and you have made a strong argument on behalf of 
increased funding for courthouse security projects. I would like very 
much to fund more courthouse security projects such as those in 
Michigan. Unfortunately, we are operating under tight budgetary 
constraints. While there are many deserving projects, the Committee 
could only fund a limited number. I will continue to work with you in 
the coming year to solve this serious problem of courthouse security.


           Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Small Business, I wish to express my support for funding the Small 
Business Administration's Office of Advocacy at the full requested 
level of $1.4 million for FY 1999. The Office of Advocacy plays a vital 
role in the Federal government by conducting research on issues of 
particular importance to small business. Recently these issues have 
included, among other things, access to capital, procurement policy and 
the cost of Federal regulations. Small businesses are 99 percent of 
America's businesses; they created more than 90 percent of new jobs in 
recent years. The research performed by the Office of Advocacy is an 
important tool for policy makers and legislators who focus on the 
nation's small businesses. It deserves to be funded at the full $1.4 
million, as requested by the Administration.
  Since the Office is typically funded from the SBA's general salaries 
and expenses account without specific designation, I ask for 
clarification from my colleagues, Senators Gregg and Hollings, 
Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman and 
Ranking Member, respectively. Was it the Subcommittee's intent to fund 
the Office of Advocacy's economic research function at $1.4 million?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the bill assumes funding of the Economic 
Research Division of SBA's Office of Advocacy at $1.4 million for FY 
1999. This Subcommittee believes the office has provided good service 
to the small business community. Much of that work is also useful for 
Congress and other policymakers.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I concur with Subcommittee Chairman 
Gregg. The work of the Office of Advocacy is important to lawmakers and 
policymakers alike. It was our intent that the Office of Advocacy 
receive FY 1999 funding at the full requested amount of $1.4 million.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I see my colleague from New Jersey Senator 
Torricelli, and the distinguished bill manager on the floor. I would 
like to briefly engage them in a colloquy on

[[Page S8877]]

the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, relating to model 
guidelines on bounty hunters to be published by the Attorney General.
  I understand the concerns of Senator Torricelli in this matter. None 
of us want to see abuses by bounty hunters. I am also sure that he does 
not wish to do any thing to adversely affect the bail bond industry, 
which has served our criminal justice system well in providing release 
of non-dangerous criminal defendants pending trial.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I say to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that 
that is a correct interpretation of my intent.
  Mr. HATCH. I continue to have some concerns about my colleague's 
amendment in this respect. However, I believe that these concerns could 
be resolved during conference. Would the Senator agree to work with me 
to address this issue?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I would be glad to assure Senator Hatch that I will 
work with him to ensure that the product that emerges from conference 
resolves both of our concerns.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I, too, would like to say that I am 
committed to working during conference with both Senator Hatch and 
Senator Torricelli to address the Judiciary Committee Chairman's 
concerns.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
consideration, and look forward to working with them on this.


  HIGH-TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL- TO MEDIUM-SIZED MANUFACTURERS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, my home State of New Hampshire leads the 
nation in the percentage of private sector employees in high technology 
jobs. The high technology business in New Hampshire has made the State 
economy strong and has helped lower the unemployment rate. I am pleased 
with the investment that high technology companies have made in my 
state. I am concerned, however, that the benefits to the State from 
these industries do not reach the more rural areas of New Hampshire. 
Much of the benefits of the high technology growth have been 
concentrated in the southern, more urban parts of the State. The more 
rural areas in the north are not growing as quickly or realizing the 
benefits of new, innovative technology as widely.
  It recently came to my attention that the University of Hew 
Hampshire's Wittemore School of Business Small Development Center (NH 
SBDC) has come up with a plan to help the rural areas in New Hampshire 
take advantage of New Hampshire's technology industries' growth. The NH 
SBDC proposes to launch a model program to provide technical assistance 
to small-medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) in rural areas, which will 
allow them to benefit from the innovative technology being utilized in 
other parts of the state. New Hampshire's program could serve as a 
model for other states that are experiencing similarly slow growth in 
rural areas. Among the services that NH SBDC intends to provide are: 
linking rural SMMs to high technology companies; identifying SMMs that 
have the greatest potential for implementing economic development in 
rural areas; and helping SMMs identify critical paths to success in 
their areas.
  The NH SBDC would like to implement this plan with funds from the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA often funds projects 
similar to this and, in fact, currently has a successful program in 
place called the SBA 7(j) program that provides funding for training 
and technical assistance to rural areas. If the SBA and the NH SBDC 
work together to develop the plan outlined by NH SBDC, I believe that 
it could have a significant positive impact on New Hampshire's rural 
manufacturers. The knowledge gained from this innovative concept can 
eventually help all States overcome similar problems in rural areas.
  I urge the SBA to accommodate the NH SBDC's request for assistance 
with this project. I look forward to working with the SBA to ensure 
that this program can be launched to help rural companies all over the 
United States benefit from the innovative technologies that are used in 
more urban areas.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to applaud the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, and the subcommittee's 
Ranking Member, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, for their work on 
the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. They have crafted a 
good piece of legislation that will help to meet a variety of needs 
across the country.
  One of the important and pressing issues addressed in this 
legislation is school safety. During the past several months, we have 
seen several tragic incidents of school violence. These acts are not 
limited to specific geographic regions or family backgrounds, nor do 
they have a single catalyst. Those who have committed such cowardly 
acts have done so for different reasons, at different times, in 
different schools. But these acts of school violence have at least one 
thing in common--they have spurred all of us to take a closer look at 
what can be done to better protect our children at school.
  In this Commerce-Justice-State legislation, the Senate offers one new 
tool in that effort. We have earmarked $210 million in the bill for a 
new national safe schools initiative geared to assist community-level 
efforts.
  Parents should not have to worry, when they put their children on the 
bus to school in the morning, that those children will not return home 
safely in the afternoon. In an effort to provide local school districts 
with more resources to reduce the levels of violence in our classrooms, 
I supported this initiative to strengthen local violence prevention and 
technology efforts.
  Within the $210 million, $25 million will assist communities in 
developing and implementing local school safety approaches. Another $10 
million is for the National Institute of Justice to develop new, more 
effective safety technologies and communications systems that can 
provide communities with quick access to the information they need to 
identify potentially violent youths.
  Perhaps most important is the $175 million for the Community Oriented 
Policing Services Program to increase community policing in and around 
schools. This would be an extension of the COPS program which has been 
widely hailed as a successful deterrent to crime. In West Virginia, 
some school districts already partner with the local police department 
to have what they call ``police resource officers'' in the schools. 
Officers and educators alike believe that having a familiar police 
presence in the hallways and a cruiser in the parking lot helps to 
reduce violence at school.
  Ensuring that our classrooms are safe demands that we do everything 
possible to find safe places for our children to learn and play and 
grow. While there is no single answer or solution to this pressing 
problem, the funding in this bill is an important step toward that 
common goal.
  Mr. President, also in this legislation is an amendment I added on 
behalf of the thousands of families in West Virginia's Upper Ohio 
Valley and throughout the country who rely on the steel industry for 
their livelihoods. These are the people who work in the shops and in 
the mills, and who pay the taxes, and whose sweat keeps America 
running. My amendment calls for a report by the United States Trade 
Representative on trade subsidies provided by the South Korean 
government to its domestic steel industry. Illegal foreign steel 
subsidies are severely undermining the economic stability in regions 
throughout our country--literally taking money out of the pockets of 
American families and putting it into the accounts of foreign 
governments.
  The American steel industry for too long has been forced to compete 
in an international marketplace that was unbalanced by foreign 
subsidies, especially those of the South Korean government. By offering 
this amendment, I want to send a clear message: the United States will 
not allow foreign governments to undercut fair trading practices. This 
Congress is prepared to defend our country's commercial interests and 
take action when those interests are threatened.
  West Virginia companies, like Weirton Steel, should not be expected 
to compete in a marketplace that places unfair obstacles in their 
paths. When foreign governments subsidize industries, they tip the 
playing field, change the rules, and make it unfair. Those overseas 
subsidies directly impact the jobs and livelihoods of working men and 
women and their families

[[Page S8878]]

here at home, as we have seen in Weirton.


                  funding for gun prosecution projects

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the manager of the bill 
accepting the amendment I filed to the Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill, S. 2660, which directs the Attorney General to 
identify two major metropolitan areas besieged by gun-related crime and 
to initiate vigorous federal gun prosecution projects in those 
districts. The amendment directs $3,000,000 in funding for hiring 
additional prosecutors and investigators to ensure that criminals 
bearing guns are not released due to a lack of prosecutorial resources.
  The inspiration for this amendment is ``Project Exile,'' an 
extraordinarily successful effort by the United States Attorney for the 
Eastern District of Virginia to rid Richmond of armed criminals by 
``exiling'' all those who use firearms to commit a crime to federal 
prison, regardless of the number of weapons or quantities of drugs 
seized. ``Project Exile'' also made use of the media to deliver its 
message that ``An illegal gun will get you five years in federal 
prison.'' That message was plastered on billboards, a city bus, TV 
commercials, and business cards distributed by local police.
  The results of ``Project Exile'' speak for themselves. In just one 
year, over 300 individuals were indicated under Project Exile and 363 
guns were seized. More than 191 armed criminals were removed from 
Richmond's streets, including the members of a violent gang responsible 
for a number of murders. The average sentence for the individuals that 
have thus far been convicted and sentenced is 56.1 months. Moreover, 
homicides for the period from November, 1997 through May, 1998 were 
running more than 50% below the same period for the previous year and 
there was a corresponding reduction in the rate of gun carrying by 
criminals. ``Project Exile'' has effectively broken the spiral of 
violent crime in Richmond.
  My colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho, introduced an amendment 
which was passed yesterday which seeks to set up a similar project in 
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania had earlier secured this funding in the 
committee report to this bill. It is important, however, that these 
projects be tested in a number of jurisdictions to ensure that their 
effectiveness can be measured in a wide range of circumstances. By 
setting up a number of test projects in different locales, we should be 
able to prove beyond any doubt that a truly determined and aggressive 
effort by law enforcement to rigorously enforce existing federal gun 
laws will have the effect of lowering the incidence of violent crime 
and will create safer communities for our citizens.
  We don't need tougher gun control laws on abiding citizens to stem 
violent crime, we need to aggressively use the effective laws we have 
to take violent criminals off the streets. We saw yesterday where the 
Senate stands on issues such as mandatory trigger locks on guns and 
vicarious liability for gunowners, and I am glad that the Senate is 
devoting even more resources to targeting violent criminals who use 
guns. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill 
for their hard work in putting forth annual legislation which provides 
federal funding for numerous vital programs. The Senate will soon vote 
to adopt the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill for the 
Fiscal Year 1999. I intend to support this measure because it provides 
funding for fighting crime, enhancing drug enforcement, and responding 
to threats of terrorism. This further addresses the shortcomings of the 
immigration process, continues the operating of the judicial process, 
facilitates commerce throughout the United States, and fulfills the 
needs of the State Department and various other agencies.
  However, I regret that I must again come forward this year to object 
to the millions of unrequested, low-priority, wasteful spending in this 
bill and its accompanying report. This year's bill has $361 million in 
pork-barrel spending. This is a slight improvement over last year's FY 
98 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill, which contained $384.2 
million in pork-barrel spending. However, $361 million is still an 
unacceptable amount of money to spend on low-priority, unrequested, 
wasteful projects. In short, Congress must curb its appetite for such 
unbridled spending.
  The multitude of unrequested earmarks buried in this proposal will 
undoubtedly further burden the American taxpayers.
  This statement highlighting wasteful and unnecessary spending in 
authorization and appropriations bills may appear to be a mere 
political ploy. This is not the case. $361 million spent on locality-
specific, special interests, pork-barrel projects is not mere rhetoric. 
Wasteful spending of this amount warrants serious debate. Wasteful 
spending of this magnitude erodes the public's trust in our system of 
government.
  Sunshine is often the best disinfectant. Congress and the American 
public must be made aware of the magnitude of wasteful spending 
endorsed by this body. While the amounts associated with each 
individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together, they 
represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to low 
priority programs at the expense of numerous programs that have 
undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. I take very 
strong exception to a large number of provisions in the bill before us 
today.
  I have compiled a lengthy list of the numerous add-ons, earmarks, and 
special exemptions provided to individual projects in this bill. It 
would take a substantial amount of time to recite this list to you. 
Instead, I request unanimous consent to include this list in the 
Record. However, I will discuss some of the more troubling provisions 
of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill in detail.
  $12 million is earmarked for the Director of the United States 
Information Agency in the state of Hawaii, in order to provide for 
carrying out the provisions of the Center for Cultural and Technical 
Interchange Between East and West Act of 1960, and an additional $7 
million dollars is earmarked for the East-West Center in Hawaii.
  $3 million is earmarked in this bill to carry out the provisions of 
the North/South Center Act of 1991 in Florida, known as the North/South 
Center, and, an additional $500,000 is earmarked in this bill for the 
North/South Center in Florida.
  $925,000 is set aside to allow the Utah State Olympic Public Safety 
Command to continue to develop and support a public safety program for 
the 2002 Winter Olympics.
  $5 million is earmarked for the Utah Communication Agency Network for 
upgrades of security and communications infrastructure for law 
enforcement needed for the 2002 Winter Olympics.
  An earmark of $750,000 to fund Chesapeake oyster research at Texas 
State University.
  Why are we spending $22.5 million on the East-West and North/South 
Centers alone. What makes these centers so extraordinary that they 
receive specific earmarks in this Appropriations bill. I am not 
condemning the North/South or East-West Centers. Nor am I condemning 
the merits of the purposes they serve. I am simply condemning the 
manner which they are receiving scarce government funds.
  I am sure there are other centers throughout the U.S. which serve the 
same or similar missions as the North-South and East-West Centers. 
Other well-deserving projects of merit and national necessity deserve 
to compete for the scarce funds gobbled up by locality specific 
earmarks such as the North/South and East-West Centers. Unfortunately, 
these projects will never receive fair deliberation if the 
Appropriations Committee pre-determines their fate by ``recommending'' 
and ``urging'' the Department to give special consideration to certain 
projects over others. In sum, it is patently unfair to divert scarce 
resources to pork-barrel, special interest projects, at the expense of 
well-deserving projects which would benefit the public as a whole.
  The bill also contains language that directs the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to expand the duty station in Grand Junction, 
Colorado. Moreover, this language directs the INS to open new duty 
stations in

[[Page S8879]]

Alamosa, Glenwood Springs, Craig, Durango, and Greely, Colorado. The 
Committee does not explain why specific sites are higher in priority 
than others, or why these sites are more deserving of funding. I fail 
to comprehend why these locations should receive such special attention 
while the rest of the nation must compete for funds in the appropriate 
merit-based selection process.
  Mr. President, I will not deliberate much longer on this subject, but 
I strongly object to the wasteful spending in this Appropriations bill. 
How can we combat the American public's cynicism towards our 
governmental system when we continue to fund low-priority, wasteful 
pork-barrel projects?
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol and on both sides 
of the aisle to develop a better standard which curbs our habit of 
funneling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special 
interests. Commitment to the public good must continue to be our 
priority. We can only live up to this challenge by eliminating the 
practice of catering to low-priority special interests, at the expense 
of the average American.
  As I have said in the past, I look forward to the day when Congress 
can present to the American people a budget that is both fiscally 
responsible and ends the practice of wasteful pork-barrel spending in 
Appropriations bills.


                        foreign affairs agencies

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as we close debate on the Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill, I would like to make a few comments 
on the funding for the foreign affairs agencies.
  I want to express my appreciation to the Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Subcommittee for their efforts to provide adequate funding for 
the foreign policy agencies within the tight allocation they have. The 
United States is a great military and economic power, with extensive 
interests overseas. To protect those interests, we need both a strong 
military and a strong diplomatic corps. ``Diplomatic readiness'' is 
more than a slogan; it represents a commitment to ensure that our 
diplomats, who stand on the front lines of our national defense, have 
the resources to perform the many tasks we entrust to them.
  I commend the Committee for providing, in particular, the necessary 
funding to modernize the Department of State's information technology. 
The Department made some bad choices in previous years, and is now 
saddled with antiquated computer and telecommunications technology. 
Information is central to the task of diplomacy, and we are undermining 
our interests substantially unless we properly equip the Department 
with modern technology.
  I'd like to say a few words about the Bureau of Export Administration 
in the Department of Commerce, which performs several functions that 
are vital to the national security of the United States. The managers 
of the bill before us were unable to find $2.5 million for three of 
those vital functions. I appeal to the managers to make every effort to 
find those funds in conference, so that we can continue to safeguard 
the national security as the American people expect us to do.
  These important Export Administration needs are as follows:
  Ten new positions (8 full-time equivalents) to fully staff Export 
Administration field offices, so that they can mount more intensive 
enforcement of U.S. controls over dual-use items that could otherwise 
be diverted to military or terrorist uses;
  Three new positions (2 full-time equivalents) to enhance the 
enforcement regarding shipments to Hong Kong, so as to prevent or stop 
any diversion of strategically-controlled goods to China; and
  Six positions (4 full-time equivalents) to maintain the 
Nonproliferation Export Control teams that help countries in the former 
Soviet Union to improve their export control systems.
  The first two items, which require a total of $2.2 million, are self-
explanatory. At a time when we have legitimate concerns regarding the 
possible Chinese diversion to military purposes of machine tools and 
high-speed computers, we must give the Bureau of Export Administration 
the funds and positions it needs to fully enforce U.S. law and 
regulations that control such exports and provide for follow-up 
monitoring of their overseas use.
  The Nonproliferation Export Control teams require a word of further 
explanation. This function--which is part of the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program--has proceeded for some years with funding from the 
Department of Defense and the Department of State. The Department of 
Commerce agreed last year, however, to assume the costs of its 
participation in that program. The State and Defense budgets no longer 
include funding for the Nonproliferation Export Control teams. If 
Commerce Department funds are not found for this purpose, this valuable 
program could well be lost.
  What would we lose if the Nonproliferation Export Control teams were 
to go away? Those teams have performed incredibly well, fostering ties 
at the customs agent level and helping the former Soviet states to 
establish export control laws and institutions to can prevent the loss 
of sensitive goods and information to rogue states or terrorist groups.
  For example, the Government of Ukraine wants a team to help brief 
members of its parliament on inadequacies in Ukraine's current law. The 
Government of Slovakia wants help in developing regulations to 
implement its new export control law. Export Administration's teams 
support these efforts in full cooperation with other U.S. departments 
and agencies.
  I realize that resources are tight, but it would be a grave mistake, 
in my view, to let this valuable non-proliferation resource slip away 
from us. So I urge my colleagues, the managers of this bill, to find 
the $1.3 million needed to keep the Nonproliferation Export Control 
teams alive and well in Fiscal Year 1999. I also urge them to find the 
$1.2 million needed to improve our own export enforcement regarding 
dual-use goods that we must prevent from being used against U.S. 
interests. I realize these are small amounts in a bill that funds three 
large cabinet departments, but they could go a long way in advancing 
our non-proliferation interests.
  In closing, I want to again express my appreciation to the managers 
of this bill. They had a very difficult task in balancing all the 
competing interests in this bill, and I believe they did an excellent 
job in balancing those interests.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. 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.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 we begin the vote on 
the Smith amendment, to be followed by the vote on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL. 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. 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.


              Amendment No. 3258, As modified, as amended

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Smith 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3258, as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

[[Page S8880]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       Specter
       
       
  The amendment (No. 3258), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3322

(Purpose: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to 
  the requirements for the admission of nonimmigrant nurses who will 
            practice in health professional shortage areas)

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

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3322.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3322) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the 
question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 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 bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       Specter
       
       
  The bill (S. 2260), as amended, was passed.
  (The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________