[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________