[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8940-S8947]
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, 2000

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate 
Calendar No. 153, the fiscal year 2000 Commerce, Justice, and State 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1217) making appropriations for the Departments 
     of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and 
     for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I bring before the Senate today, on behalf 
of myself, the Senator from South Carolina, and members of the 
Appropriations Committee, the bill to fund the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the judiciary, and related agencies, which I want 
to spend some time discussing.
  But before I do that, let me begin by thanking, for the extraordinary 
amount of work and effort that they put into this bill, my staff and 
the staff of the Senator from South Carolina. They have put in so many 
hours. It is incredible. They spent evenings here. They spent nights 
here. And they spent weekends here, all at the expense of their 
families. I, for one, am extraordinarily appreciative of that.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Let me mention a few folks. I ask unanimous consent that all of these 
people be granted full floor privileges during the consideration of 
this bill.
  Jim Morhard, of course, who is the clerk of the staff and chief 
operating officer, Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, Eric Harnischfeger, 
Clayton Heil, Dana Quam, Meg Burke, Vas Alexopoulos, Jackie Cooney, 
Brian McLachlan, Lila Helms, Emelie East, and Tim Harding. These folks 
work incredible hours. We very much appreciate it.
  Mr. President, this bill recommends a total of $35.3 billion in 
spending for the fiscal year 2000. The bill provides, however, $918 
million less than was appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
  In fact, if you include in it the fact that we have had the 
significant increase in the amount of money that is being spent on the 
census over what was spent last year, because we are headed into a 
census period, the real reduction below last year's spending in this 
bill is closer to about $2.6 billion. It is, of course, significantly 
less than the President's request.
  Much of this reduction, however, from the President's request, is the 
result of the fact that we decided not to fund advanced appropriations, 
something I very much oppose, and I think is bad policy. The President 
included in his budget request advanced funding requests of 
considerable amounts. We simply did not proceed with those.
  In fact, his advanced funding initiatives covered 6 years out. So I 
hope the President won't be putting out press statements that we are 
``denying'' him something. When we get to those years, we will take a 
hard look at his request and, hopefully, be able to address them in a 
way that we can agree on them, should we all be in our present 
positions.
  The Committee chose not to add a great deal of money for many of the 
President's requests that are new initiatives. We instead took a very 
strong, fiscally conservative approach. We stay within our budget 
allocation, which was $918 million below last year's level.
  The Administration's proposed programmatic spending increased by 29.5 
percent over last year's enacted budget. We decided that was a mistake. 
Ironically, considering the amount of the increase, the President's 
budget still underfunded what we considered to be critical functions of 
these agencies under our jurisdiction.
  Specifically, the Border Patrol was underfunded by $185 million; and 
targeted programs that the Committee relies upon, such as the State and 
local law enforcement block grants, cut by $522 million; juvenile crime 
funding by $250 million; and State prison grants by $665 million. These 
were all reductions in the President's budget, even though the 
President's budget was a high number.

[[Page S8941]]

  So we took the President's budget, and we tried to work with it, and 
we put our priorities in place. I think we have come up with an 
excellent bill considering the tightness of the allocation and the 
pressures which are on us. We had to reevaluate our priorities in light 
of that.
  The Justice Department is, of course, the single biggest area in our 
bill. It is a big number. It represents, obviously, a significant part 
of the responsibility of the Federal Government. It has within it 
agencies such as the FBI, DEA, INS, U.S. Attorneys Office, and many 
other subagencies that do an exceptional job of protecting our country 
and making us a safe nation in which to live.
  We have attempted to show our concern and our respect for the efforts 
of these agencies by funding them as aggressively as we can in the 
context of this difficult financial situation in which we find 
ourselves.
  We have, however, also made some initiatives. First, we initiated 
efforts in the area of children and youth. Last year, unfortunately, we 
saw--and this year we have seen--students shoot people in schools. We 
have seen violence in schools of extraordinary proportions that has 
depressed us and outraged us.
  Last year we were a little bit ahead of the curve, I guess, in this 
Committee in that we set up a fund the purpose of which was to address 
safe school initiatives. This year we are expanding that fund. The Safe 
Schools Initiative was really an effort by myself and Senator Hollings. 
It addressed issues such as making sure that schools would have the 
opportunity, if they so desired, to have police officers work with the 
students, making available better equipment for schools, and 
determining whether weapons were being brought into the schools. It is 
to provide a significant amount in the area of prevention in the 
schools so that there would be adequate counseling funds available.
  That effort, which was started last year with approximately $240 
million, is continued in this bill aggressively. We have for example, 
put $180 million in for school resource officers. The idea is to have 
police officers in the school systems, if the school systems want them, 
to help educate kids as to the need to respect the law and to work with 
law enforcement.
  There is $38 million for community planning and prevention 
activities, which is a big sum, and $25 million to develop new and more 
effective safety technology that schools can use for surveillance.
  We are also providing a significant amount of money for a number of 
specific agencies which we think do an extraordinary job in helping 
prevent crime and deal with kids who may have gotten off the path in 
their early years. Specifically, we are providing $50 million for the 
Boys and Girls Clubs of America, which we think have done an excellent 
job.
  We also put money in for Big Brothers/Big Sisters and for the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, significant amounts 
of dollars, increases over last year.

  We don't want to reinvent the wheel. We think there are programs out 
there working. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, we are saying 
to the programs, ``Let us help you.'' They are the professionals, and 
they know how to do this. They have a track record of doing it well, 
such as the Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Let us support you. 
We have done that in this bill. I named those three agencies; there are 
others.
  We also escalated the effort in the area of the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention to a level of $284 million, and $100 
million for the juvenile accountability block grants, giving funds to 
States that come forward to use the money.
  We address the Missing and Exploited Children Program. Again, the 
National Center has done an extraordinary job. The FBI has the strike 
team in this area. We have funded both those areas very aggressively. 
We feel very strongly this is an area where we have made progress, and 
we want to keep that progress going. For example, we have a Cyber 
Tipline for parents, teachers--even kids, if they are so inclined--who 
can directly access the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children. The tipline is reached through the Internet. The information 
entered goes to professionals who review each concern, whether it 
happens to be pornography, pedophilia, or just a threat to a child. 
Professionals can directly access the proper law enforcement agency or 
community service agency to immediately be brought into the process for 
addressing that person's concern.
  We have done a great deal in the area of fighting drugs. I can go on 
at considerable length in the drug-fighting area. We put a high 
priority on this. We felt the Administration maybe missed the mark a 
little bit. Instead of giving the DEA the reinforcement teams they 
needed, they underfunded the teams. We funded the regional and mobile 
enforcement teams at the level the DEA wanted so we can have the strike 
teams that have been so successful. In the methamphetamine area we have 
done a great deal, and we will continue to push that aggressively.
  The Justice Department covers such a broad spectrum, there is no 
shortage of areas to discuss. I am trying to highlight themes of the 
bill. We are trying to put funds where we know we get results. We are 
trying to address needs we know are essential, such as the safe school 
programs, the missing children programs, the issue of child pornography 
on the Internet, and the pedophile issue of predators over the 
Internet.
  Again this year, we put an extremely strong effort into the violence 
against women initiatives. This was an area both Senator Hollings and I 
felt strongly about. We have funded this aggressively over the last few 
years. We will continue to fund this area aggressively. The bill 
includes $283 million to combat violence against women. The funding 
continues special grants started last year at the suggestion of Senator 
Wellstone for colleges to have funds available to address threats 
against women on campuses.
  We have Indian initiatives in the bill, including the Indian Country 
Law Enforcement Initiative. These have mostly been done at the 
suggestion of Senator Campbell, who is the head of the Indian Affairs 
Subcommittee, and is also on this Committee. He has had great ideas.
  We have initiatives in the area of DNA identification.
  A long-standing effort of the Committee has been to make sure that we 
are getting better prepared for what is an inevitable, unfortunate 
event, and that is a terrorist attack against American facilities. We 
are coming upon, unfortunately, the anniversary of the Nairobi and Dar 
es Salaam attacks. We know there are evil people that wish Americans 
harm. We have to get ready for that. We have had a three-prong approach 
to this which was started about 4 years ago, purely through the urging 
and initiative of this Committee. We set up a task force effort for 
coordination of the agencies on counterterrorism. We have great 
results, although we are nowhere near where we need to be. However, we 
are moving in the right direction.

  The three levels of effort are: (1) counterintelligence, especially 
overseas counterintelligence; (2) interdiction of people before they 
get to the United States; and, (3) the issue of dealing with an event 
should a catastrophe occur as a result of a terrorist attack.
  We have set up counterterrorism initiatives in this bill, and we 
continue to expand all our efforts on all three of those fronts. We 
fund research to try to get a handle on how to respond to biological 
and chemical attacks. For first responders, we are giving communities 
the ability through police, fire, and health facilities, when they are 
first on the scene, to be able to handle that efficiently. We have an 
excellent national effort on first responders. There is adequate 
funding for the FBI and State Department, which are under our 
jurisdiction, in their efforts of counterterrorism, intelligence, and 
identifying the threat.
  I don't claim we are there. We are just at the beginning, an 
adolescence level. We were at an embryonic state 4 years ago, but we 
have grown and gotten better. We will continue to grow and get better. 
Unfortunately, we are in a race against time, in my opinion, but we do 
recognize that. It takes a long time to educate and get people up to 
speed. It takes a long time to buy the equipment we need. We are doing 
our best at it. In this Committee, and I think as a government, we are 
working well together.

[[Page S8942]]

  The INS issue is another big issue we tried to address. We have had a 
lot of support from people who have border issues. Certainly, Senator 
Hutchison from Texas has been a strong member of this Subcommittee and 
feels very strongly about this. Senator Domenici, of course, from New 
Mexico feels strongly about this. Senator Kyl from Arizona feels 
strongly about this.
  Last year, we funded an extra 1,000 Border Patrol agents in our bill. 
Unfortunately, the INS has not been able to put those people in place. 
There are a lot of excuses flying around and a lot of finger pointing. 
We think we have in this bill addressed the finger pointing. There 
should be no excuse for not getting those folks on board. We have added 
another 1,000 agents on top of those 1,000. We had made a commitment to 
add 3,000 and we are keeping that. We differ with the White House, who 
did not address the 1,000 agents. There was a front-page newspaper 
story about people in terror in Douglas, AZ, of being overrun by 
illegal aliens. People cannot water their garden without a gun in order 
to protect themselves. We have to control our borders. This bill makes 
an extraordinary effort to do that.
  We have funded aggressively the Commerce Department. That is not an 
understatement, even in the context of our tight funding situation.
  We have increased the Census Bureau significantly with $1.7 billion 
of new funds, for a total of $3.1 billion. We understand they do not 
feel that is enough. We will hold hearings to find out what they think 
they need. The night we were marking up, we got the notice they were 
upset with the amount of money. I found that to be ironic and not very 
good management. When I see something similar to that, I say to myself 
maybe we better find out what they really do need. If they can't get it 
to us sooner than that, maybe there is not a good management scheme 
behind that request. We will have hearings to find out. There may have 
to be some further effort to address the census funding. I recognize 
that. I think everybody else recognizes that.
  The NOAA account is well funded. This is a very important agency for 
many who live on the coast. Obviously, it is critical, but equally 
important, for those that happen to live in Oklahoma or in Arkansas 
where the severity of the weather can have horrible events. As in 
Oklahoma recently, the importance of adequate atmospheric predictions 
are critical. We have taken a major effort to adequately fund that.
  NTIA and ITC--we have funded all those as best we can. We think we 
have done a good job, especially in the international trade accounts.
  State Department is another agency which comes under the jurisdiction 
of this Committee. This Committee has fascinating jurisdiction. State 
Department, of course, is critical. We had the Crowe report, which told 
us that we need to spend $1.4 billion annually for a period of 10 years 
in order to get our embassies to a position where they could adequately 
defend themselves against potential terrorist attack. We are coming up 
on the 1-year anniversary of that event.
  Now, we did have an emergency appropriation a year ago of $1.4 
billion and that is being spent, and I think they are doing a good job 
of using that money to do the initial, primary protective things they 
need to do: put in barriers, change the location of the security 
houses, and making sure people have adequately secured the immediate 
activity going on in the embassies. But there are tens of embassies 
which have to be repaired, changed, physically moved in order to become 
secure. The cost is extraordinary.
  The White House regrettably did not send up a very high number in 
security. They asked for $300 million. We put a priority on this. We 
have it up to $430 million in this bill, which was difficult to do in 
the context of the caps we are working with. We hope to find more money 
somewhere as we move down the road because we feel very strongly that 
giving adequate security--not only physical security is important, but 
I feel very strongly, and I know Senator Hollings feels strongly, the 
dependents of our people we send overseas need to have security. If you 
have kids going to school, if your wife is living, going to the grocery 
store or maybe working another job in a foreign country, she, and your 
children--or your husband and children--should not be at risk. We 
should be able to give them security too. So we are trying to upgrade 
the security, not only for the diplomats but also for their dependents, 
something I place a very high degree of responsibility on.
  Obviously, the State Department has a lot of other functions. U.N. 
arrears has been an item of considerable discussion now that there has 
been an agreement. With the foreign relations authorization bill being 
passed, we have funded the arrears. There is still some discrepancy as 
to what the number was in that agreement, but our intention is to fund 
the arrears, pursuant to the agreement reached between Senator Helms, 
the Administration, and the U.N. But let's remember those moneys do not 
get spent unless the U.N. lives up to its responsibilities to start 
putting in place adequate accounting systems, to cut down on what is 
the patronage system there, which is outrageous, and to give the United 
States an adequate voice in the budgetary process. It does not have 
this now because it was kicked off the Budget Committee which was 
inexcusable considering the fact we pay 25 percent of the costs of that 
institution.
  We have also, of course, funded a variety of other activities within 
the State Department, and we are totally committed to trying to give 
the State Department the resources they need. I recognize there are 
some shortfalls here in the State Department which again were forced 
upon us by the tight constraints we are confronting. They are not 
shortfalls which we are happy with, but they were things we had to do, 
especially in the overhead area.
  There may be some amendments to move money around in the State 
Department. If there are, I am going to ask people serious questions as 
how they can do that because there is no budget in the State Department 
that has any excess money in it. I can assure my colleagues of that, 
after we have gone through this and had to reduce overall spending a 
stated $73.683 million below last year's level, but it's actually 
$3.614 billion below the President's budget request. We have funded 
this year's services at last year's levels. It is something members of 
the Subcommittee have agreed with.
  We also made, as I mentioned, a major initiative in the area of 
Internet on a variety of different levels. I feel very strongly we 
should not discipline the Internet. It's not our job to try to control 
the Internet. It would be a serious mistake as a Government. We should 
not be taxing it. What we do need to do is look at those areas where 
the Federal role is appropriate. One, of course, as I mentioned before, 
is to continue to police the Internet relative to the use of child 
pornography and the predations of pedophiles on the Internet. We have 
again aggressively funded the FBI efforts in that area, along with the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Boys and Girls 
Clubs' initiatives in this area, so we can start to get a handle on 
this. So when a predator goes on the Internet and starts selling child 
pornography, or starts trying to entice a child, through the use of the 
Internet, into some sort of meeting that might end in the harm of that 
child, that predator will have to ask themselves, ``Am I talking to a 
child or am I talking to a FBI agent or a trained local law enforcement 
agent?'' That is a good question today because, I can tell you, there 
are a lot of FBI resources committed to this. Every day we are 
multiplying the number of local law enforcement resources committed, so 
people are at significant risk if they try to use the Internet for 
those types of things.

  In addition, the Internet is unfortunately being used to prey on 
senior citizens through fraudulent schemes. We funded the FTC effort in 
this area, which I think is very important. They started their own 
initiative to try to deal with fraud over the Internet, and we are 
aggressively funding this program.
  Not of less importance, but not as personally important because it 
doesn't impact individuals so immediately, but certainly it can impact 
them, is the need for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to 
be more aggressive. They understand this. There is an initiative that 
came from the SEC to get more aggressive in monitoring the Internet and 
certainly the

[[Page S8943]]

stock activities on the Internet. Therefore, we fund the SEC 
initiatives in this area. We are happy to do that.
  In our opinion, we fund adequately the other agencies regulatory 
agencies, SBA, FCC. I already mentioned the FTC and the SEC. So we have 
attempted in this bill to address, with the extremely limited amount of 
money that we had, the needs of the agencies which are under our 
control.
  Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from South Carolina. Before 
I do, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his extraordinary 
knowledge and support. I say this every year, but it is absolutely 
true. He brings so much institutional history to this bill, we really 
could not function without him. He understands what the background is 
of these issues as they come down the pike, something I do not 
necessarily understand. That type of information is critical.
  He is wonderful to work with. I respect his knowledge, his ability, 
and his willingness to be supportive and helpful on what is a very 
complex bill, which includes many strong initiatives of which he is 
certainly the father.
  I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my subcommittee 
chairman and colleague, Senator Gregg, in presenting to the Senate S. 
1217, the fiscal year 2000 Commerce, Justice, and State, the judiciary, 
and related agencies appropriations bill. Once again, I would like to 
commend Chairman Gregg for his outstanding efforts and bipartisan 
approach in bringing a bill to the floor that--in most areas--is good 
and balanced.
  We fund a wide variety of Federal programs through this 
appropriations bill. We fund the FBI, the DEA, the State Department and 
our embassies overseas, the Census Bureau, NOAA, the Supreme Court, the 
Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and 
the list goes on and on. As a result, this bill provides funding for a 
host of efforts that range from fighting ``the war on drugs'' and ``the 
battle against cybercrimes'', to preparing at the local level against 
``domestic terrorism'' and ``natural disasters.'' This bill provides 
funding to protect both our elderly citizens from abuse and marketing 
scams and our youth from sexual predators on the streets and on the 
Internet. We provide funding for fisheries research and atmospheric 
research; we provide funding for our weather satellite systems and 
forecasts; we provide funding for the management of our fragile coastal 
areas--initiatives that impact every single aspect of our community--
businesses, farms, the fishing industry, the tourism industry, and the 
consumer.
  In total, this bill provides $34.1 billion in budget authority which 
is about $400 million above last year's appropriated level. Even though 
we had an increase of $400 million in our allocation for fiscal year 
2000, the funding level requested for the Census Bureau for fiscal year 
2000 was a $1.7 billion increase above the current funding level. In 
other words, Mr. President, to fully fund the 2000 decennial census we 
were required to cut $1.3 billion in funding from the fiscal year 1999 
funding level for all other programs. This was not an easy task, and 
with the exception of a few circumstances that I will touch on in 
greater detail later, Senator Gregg did a remarkable job.
  Chairman Gregg has mentioned many of the funding specifics in this 
bill, so I will not repeat the details; however, I would like to point 
out to our colleagues some of the highlights of this bill.
  This bill provides $17 billion for the Department of Justice, 
including $2.9 billion for the FBI, $1.2 billion for the DEA, and $3 
billion for the Office of Justice programs. Within the Department of 
Justice, we continue the Safe Schools Initiative which Senator Gregg 
and I started last year, and provides $218 million in funding for 
additional school resource officers, technology, and community 
initiatives in an effort to combat violence in our schoools.
  Mr. President, again this year Americans watched news stories unfold 
about shootings and other violent acts as they occurred in our schools. 
Violent crime in our schools is simply unacceptable and must be 
stopped. We cannot allow violence or the threat of violence to turn our 
schools into a hostile setting that prevents our students from 
obtaining the education they deserve. To fully understand the 
circumstances under which our youth are attending school, one needs to 
only look at a few statistics that have been gathered recently:
  During the 1996-97 school year, 10 percent of all public schools 
reported one or more serious violent crimes to the police or other law 
enforcement representatives. An additional 47 percent of public schools 
reported at least one less serious or nonviolent crime to police. (1998 
Department of Education Annual Report on School Safety)
  About 6,093 students were expelled during the 1996-1997 academic 
school year for bringing firearms or explosives to school. (1998 Report 
on State Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act--School Year: 1996-
1997, Department of Education)
  In 1995, over 2 million students between the ages 12 and 19 feared 
they were going to be attacked or harmed at school.
  Likewise, about 2.1 million students between the ages 12 an d19 
avoided one or more places at school for fear of their own safety. 
(1998 Indicators of School Crime and Safety, U.S. Depts. of Education 
and Justice.)
  This Safe Schools initiative is aimed at protecting our children by 
putting more police in the school setting. The bill provides $180 
million, $55 million above the President's request, through the Office 
of Justice programs solely for the hiring of school resource officers. 
The additional $38 million is directed towards community planning and 
prevention activities--for local police departments and sheriff's 
offices to work with schools and other community-based organizations to 
develop programs to improve the safety of elementary and secondary 
school children and educators in and around the schools of our nation. 
This is a much needed program, and an initiative that has proven to be 
successful in the past.
  This bill also provides $283.7 million for the Violence Against Women 
Program, $75 million for State prison grants, $400 million for the 
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, $40 million for drug courts, 
and $284.5 million for juvenile justice programs. In addition, $25 
million has again been provided for the bulletproof vest grant program 
to reduce the risk of serious injury or death to our nation's law 
enforcement officers. In an effort to respond to the proliferation of 
crimes involving children, the committee has provided $19.9 million for 
the Missing Children Program, an increase of $2.78 million over last 
year's amount. This money will be used to combat the ever increasing 
number of crimes against children with an emphasis on kidnapping and 
sexual exploitation.
  The bill provides $7.2 billion for the Commerce Department, of which 
$3.1 billion is to be used to conduct the decennial census. The 
administration submitted a budget amendment for an additional $1.7 
billion in funding for the decennial census; unfortunately, we received 
that request only two days before consideration of the bill by the 
subcommittee and full committee. Senator Gregg and I are working on 
scheduling a hearing prior to conference with the House to address the 
budget amendment, and I appreciate the chairman's efforts in addressing 
this issue in a nonpartisan manner.
  The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) is funded at $233.1 million which is 
above last year's level by $29.6 million, and the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership (MEP) program is funded at a level of $109.8 
million. This amount will fully fund all MEP centers.
  The bill also provides $2.5 billion for NOAA, an increase of $384 
million over last year's funding level. I am pleased that the 
distinguished chairman has worked with me to insure that we maintain a 
focus on our oceans and coastal waterways.
  Regarding NOAA, Mr. President, if I could just take a minute, I would 
like to recognize the outstanding work of Dr. Nancy Foster, head of the 
National Ocean Service, which oversees the labs, estuarine reserves, 
and the Coastal Services Center in my home state of South Carolina. I 
can tell you she is one of the hardest working public servants with 
whom I have had the privilege of working over the past several

[[Page S8944]]

years, and she has brought to the job boundless energy, understanding, 
and an ability to fix problems.
  Dr. Foster has been with NOAA since 1977. She helped create the 
National Marine Sanctuary and Estuarine Research Reserve Programs. 
These programs preserve America's near shore and offshore marine 
environments in the same manner as do the better known national parks 
and wildlife refuges run by the Department of the Interior. Nancy went 
on to serve as the Director of Protected Resources at NOAA's National 
Marine Fisheries Service, where she managed the Government's programs 
to protect and conserve whales, dolphins, sea turtles and other 
endangered and protected species. After that, she was named the Deputy 
Director of the entire fisheries service, where she proved especially 
sensitive to the economic impact on communities and the need to promote 
what the folks downtown and in academia call ``sustainable 
development.''
  In 1997, Secretary Bill Daley and Under Secretary Jim Baker tapped 
Nancy to take over the National Ocean Service. That is about as high as 
a career professional can go; in other agencies or bureaus, this level 
of position would be held by at least an Assistant Secretary-level 
official. NOS is the oldest part of NOAA--coastal mapping traces its 
lineage back to 1807--and she directed reinvention and change so that 
the Ocean Service became one of the most modern and more effective 
parts of NOAA. Dr. Foster is always finding new ways to do business. 
She is an innovator. She directed the total modernization of NOAA's 
nautical mapping and charting. Along with Dr. Sylvia Earle, she has 
created a partnership with the National Geographic Society to launch a 
5-year undersea exploratory program called ``Sustainable Seas 
Expeditions.'' Their goal is to use these exploratory dives to rekindle 
our nation's interest in the oceans, and especially the national marine 
sanctuaries. They are bringing back the kind of enthusiasm and public 
education that Jacques Cousteau created when I first came to the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, Nancy Foster is the person at NOAA whom the rank and 
file employees--the marine biologists, scientists and researchers--
trust and look up to. She is a role model for professional women 
everywhere, especially those who work in the sciences. She is an 
official whom we in the Congress can look to for leadership and who 
pays attention to local and constituent issues. She is non-partisan and 
plays it straight.
  Dr. Foster recently underwent surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital and 
is home recuperating. So Nancy, if you are watching at home on C-Span, 
on behalf of Senator Gregg, the Appropriations Committees as well as 
the Commerce Authorization Committee, and our professional staff, I 
want to wish you the best. Take your time and get well. We need you 
back on the job, and wish you a speedy recovery.
  The bill includes a total of $5.4 billion for the Department of State 
and related agencies. Within the State Department account, $883 million 
has been provided for worldwide security, an increase of $146 million 
above the President's request. Additionally, in recognition of the high 
profile risk that State Department family members face in overseas 
locations, $40 million has been included to improve the security in and 
around both housing and school areas for the families of those who 
serve in this capacity. The funding level also includes payment of 
international organization and peacekeeping funds, including $244 
million for UN arrears.
  I highlighted a few minutes ago the Safe Schools Initiative that 
Chairman Gregg and I have worked together on for the past 2 years. I 
would also like to comment briefly on two other important initiatives 
before closing: electronic commerce and COPS.
  Regarding electronic commerce and the Internet, I would like to 
discuss an area which is growing in significance each day. With the 
explosion of the Internet as an electronic transaction medium, we 
cannot ignore the increasing potential for fraud, abuse, and attacks on 
consumer privacy. If we stop and take a look at the Internet and the 
potential that it has, we recognize that its very design allows 
schemers and con artists to reach more people, with more scams, at a 
faster rate while remaining virtually anonymous. This is a veritable 
breeding ground for electronic fraud and abuse. In fact, it was 
recently reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 
receives more than 100 complaints per day about illegal Internet 
activity involving fraudulent stock and investment schemes. In 1998, 
the National Consumers League received over 7,700 Internet fraud 
complaints which was a 385-percent increase over the previous year. 
With reports like this I think that it is clear that protection efforts 
need to keep pace with the growing number of Internet users, 
particularly since estimates indicate that perhaps 50 percent of the 
population of the United States will have access to the Internet by the 
year 2000.
  In response to the growth of this sector, Mr. President, this bill 
includes funding for a number of programs and activities. I would like 
to again commend Chairman Gregg for his efforts to address this growing 
problem of Internet fraud, particularly given the tight budget 
constraints under which this bill was put together. This bill provides 
$133 million in funding to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for FY 
2000, an increase of $16.7 million above the current funding level. 
This increase was provided in part because the subcommittee is mindful 
of the FTC's efforts toward ensuring that electronic commerce continues 
to flourish and consumers do not become victims of fraud and abuse 
while conducting transactions on the web. Additionally, the committee 
has provided $10 million in funding for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC) to assist in the prevention, detection, and 
prosecution of Internet related fraud and investment schemes.
  Finally, regarding the COPS initiative, I can fully understand the 
difficult decisions the chairman had to make as we put this bill 
together. And as I have stated, I support him on just about everything 
in this bill--with the exception of eliminating the COPS program. This 
is a good program that has proven to work. And it works well. Crime has 
been declining for 6\1/2\ consecutive years and is at a 25 year low. We 
are getting the jump on crime and this is not the time to just stop 
funding the program. Numerous law enforcement groups agree. The 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers support the program, the 
National Sheriffs Association supports the program, the National 
Troopers Coalition supports the program, the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police supports the program, and the list goes on. I 
completely understand the limitations under which the chairman operated 
in getting a bill to the floor. Several of my colleagues have been 
working for the past several weeks in putting together an amendment to 
reestablish the COPS Program. While I believe that program deserves 
even more funding than provided in the amendment, I also believe the 
amendment is a good response and practical effort toward restoring an 
effective and valuable program while acknowledging the many funding 
restraints imposed on this bill. I look forward to debating this issue 
further when the amendment is offered.
  In closing let me say again that given the allocation we received, 
this is a good bill. Many--but not all--of the administration's 
priorities were addressed to some extent. Likewise many--but not all--
of the priorities of congressional Members were addressed to some 
extent. I know that every year we face difficulties with respect to 
limited funding and multiple priorities, but the funding caps this year 
proved to be unusually prohibitive. As a result, tough decisions were 
made. However, I believe that the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee 
made those decisions in a bipartisan and judicious manner which will 
allow us to address many critical funding needs such as Census 2000, 
1000 additional Border Patrol agents, counter-terrorism efforts, the 
FBI's capabilities to combat cybercrime and crimes against children, 
DEA's continued war on drugs, critical fisheries research, and overseas 
peacekeeping efforts.
  I would like to take a moment before closing to acknowledge and thank 
Senator Gregg's staff and my staff for their hard work and diligence in 
bringing together a bill that does everything I have just mentioned and 
more. They have worked nonstop in a straightforward and bipartisan 
manner, to deliver the bill that is before the Senate

[[Page S8945]]

today. This bill could not have come together without their efforts and 
I thank them for all of their hard work.
  Mr. President, let me reiterate my gratitude to Chairman Gregg and my 
admiration for the balanced bill that he has produced. What we were 
confronted with, in a capsule, was a cut of some $1.3 billion from the 
present policy appropriation, with the ad-on demand of $1.7 billion for 
the census for next year. Within those confines, Senator Gregg has 
really done an outstanding job, I can tell you that. It is balanced. It 
is thoughtful. I have seen, over the years, this bill handled by 
several chairmen but no one has done the job Senator Gregg has done on 
this particular measure. So I am glad to join with him. We want to move 
it as expeditiously as we possibly can.
  With that said, let me yield to the chairman.


                           Amendment No. 1271

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I send to the desk a managers' 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent the managers' amendment I have now 
sent to the desk be considered and agreed to, en bloc. These 
noncontroversial amendments have been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment was agreed to, as follows:
       On page 6, line 14, strike ``any other provision of law'' 
     and insert ``31 U.S.C. 3302(b)''.
       On page 6, line 18, strike ``(15 U.S.C. 18(a))'' and insert 
     ``(15 U.S.C. 18a)''.
       On page 25, line 23, insert after ``(106 Stat. 3524)'', 
     ``of which $5,000,000 shall be available to the National 
     Institute of Justice for a national evaluation of the Byrne 
     program,''.
       On page 30, line 17, strike after ``1999''; ``of which 
     $12,000,000 shall be available for the Office of Justice 
     Programs' Global Information Integration Initiative;''.
       On page 50, line 6, insert before the period: ``to be made 
     available until expended''.
       On page 73, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 306. Section 604(a)(5) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding before the semicolon at the end 
     thereof the following: `, and, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, pay on behalf of justices and judges of the 
     United States appointed to hold office during good behavior, 
     aged 65 or over, any increases in the cost of Federal 
     Employees' Group Life Insurance imposed after April 24, 1999, 
     including any expenses generated by such payments, as 
     authorized by the Judicial Conference of the United States.' 
     ''.
       On page 75, line 15, insert the following after ``period'': 
     ``, unless the Secretary of State determines that a detail 
     for a period more than a total of 2 years during any 5 year 
     period would further the interests of the Department of 
     State''.
       On page 75, line 21, insert the following after ``detail'': 
     ``, unless the Secretary of State determines that the 
     extension of the detail would further the interests of the 
     Department of State''.
       On page 76, line 11, insert before the period: ``: Provided 
     further, That of the amount made available under this 
     heading, not less than $11,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Office of Defense Trade Controls''.
       On page 110, strike lines 15 through 23 and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding otherwise applicable law, for each 
     license or construction permit issued by the Commission under 
     this subsection for which a debt or other monetary obligation 
     is owed to the Federal Communications Commission or to the 
     United States, the Commission shall be deemed to have a 
     perfected, first priority security interest in such license 
     or permit, and in the proceeds of sale of such license or 
     permit, to the extent of the outstanding balance of such a 
     debt or other obligation.''.
       On page 111, insert after the end of Sec. 619:
       ``Sec. 620. (a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this 
     section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means the Federal Communications 
     Commission.
       (2) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who is serving 
     under an appointment without time limitation, and has been 
     currently employed by such agency for a continuous period of 
     at least 3 years; but does not include--
       (A) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter 
     83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, or another 
     retirement system for employees of the Government.
       (B) an employee having a disability on the basis of which 
     such employee is or would be eligible for disability 
     retirement under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 
     of title 5, United States Code, or another retirement system 
     for employees of the Government.
       (C) an employee who has been duly notified that he or she 
     is to be involuntarily separated for misconduct or 
     unacceptable performance;
       (D) an employee who has previously received any voluntary 
     separation incentive payment from the Federal Government 
     under this section or any other authority.
       (E) an employee covered by statutory reemployment rights 
     who is on transfer to another organization; or
       (F) any employee who, during the twenty-four month period 
     preceding the date of separation, has received a recruitment 
     or relocation bonus under section 5753 of title 5, United 
     States Code, or who, within the twelve month period preceding 
     the date of separation, received a retention allowance under 
     section 5754 of that title.
       (3) The term ``Chairman'' means the Chairman of the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (b) Agency Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairman, prior to obligating any 
     resources for voluntary separation incentive payments, shall 
     submit to the Office of Management and Budget a strategic 
     plan outlining the intended use of such incentive payments 
     and a proposed organizational chart for the agency once such 
     incentive payments have been completed.
       (2) Contents.--The agency's plan shall include--
       (A) the positions and functions to be reduced, eliminated, 
     and increased, as appropriate, identified by organizational 
     unit, geographic location, occupational category and grade 
     level;
       (B) the time period during which incentives may be paid;
       (C) the number and amounts of voluntary separation 
     incentive payments to be offered; and
       (D) a description of how the agency will operate without 
     the eliminated positions and functions and with any increased 
     or changed occupational skill mix.
       (3) Consultation.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall review the agency's plan and may make 
     appropriate recommendations for the plan with respect to the 
     coverage of incentives as described under paragraph (2)(A), 
     and with respect to the matters described in paragraph 
     (2)(B)-(C).
       (c) Authority To Provide Voluntary Separation Incentive 
     Payments.--
       (1) In general.--A voluntary separation incentive payment 
     under this section may be paid by the Chairman to any 
     employee only to the extent necessary to eliminate the 
     positions and functions identified by the strategic plan.
       (2) Amount and treatment of payments.--A voluntary 
     incentive payment--
       (A) shall be paid in a lump sum, after the employee's 
     separation;
       (B) shall be equal to the lesser of--
       (i) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be 
     entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5, United 
     States Code (without adjustment for any previous payments 
     made); or
       (ii) an amount determined by the Chairman, not to exceed 
     $25,000;
       (C) may not be made except in the case of any qualifying 
     employee who voluntarily separates (whether by retirement or 
     resignation) under the provisions of this section by not 
     later than September 30, 2001;
       (D) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be 
     included in the computation, of any other type of Government 
     benefit; and
       (E) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be 
     entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code, 
     based on any other separation.
       (d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement 
     Fund.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any other payments which it 
     is required to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 or 
     chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, the agency shall 
     remit to the Office of Personnel Management for deposit in 
     the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal to 15 
     percent of the final base pay of each employee of the agency 
     who is covered under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 
     84 of title 5, United States Code, to whom a voluntary 
     separation incentive has been paid under this Act.
       (2) Definition.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), the term 
     ``final basic pay,'' with respect to an employee, means the 
     total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year 
     of service by such employee, computed using the employee's 
     final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a 
     full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
       (e) Effect of Subsequent Employment With the Government.--
       (1) An individual who has received a voluntary separation 
     incentive payment from the agency under this section and 
     accepts any employment for compensation with the Government 
     of the United States, or who works for any agency of the 
     United States Government through a personal services 
     contract, within 5 years after the date of the separation on 
     which the payment is based shall be required to pay, prior to 
     the individual's first day of employment, the entire amount 
     of the lump sum incentive payment to the agency.
       (2) If the employment under paragraph (1) is with an 
     Executive agency (as defined by section 105 of title 5, 
     United States Code), the United States Postal Service, or the 
     Postal Rate Commission, the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel management may, at the request of the head of the 
     agency, waive the repayment if the individual involved 
     possesses unique abilities and is the only qualified 
     applicant available for the position.
       (3) If the employment under paragraph (1) is with an entity 
     in the legislative branch, the head of the entity or the 
     appointing official may waive the repayment if the individual 
     involved possesses unique abilities

[[Page S8946]]

     and is the only qualified applicant available for the 
     position.
       (4) If the employment under paragraph (1) is with the 
     judicial branch, the Director of the Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts may waive the repayment if the 
     individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the 
     only qualified applicant for the position.
       (f) Intended Effect on Agency Employment Levels.--
       (1) In general.--Voluntary separations under this section 
     are not intended to necessarily reduce the total number of 
     full-time equivalent positions in the Federal Communications 
     Commission. The agency may redeploy or use the full-time 
     equivalent positions vacated by voluntary separations under 
     this section to make other positions available to more 
     critical locations or more critical occupations.
       (2) Enforcement.--The president, through the office of 
     Management and Budget, shall monitor the agency and take any 
     action necessary to ensure that the requirements of this 
     subsection are met.
       (g) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management may 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to implement 
     this section.
       (h) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment. (Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999, as included in Public Law 105-277, section 101(b).''.
       At the end of title VI, insert the following:
       ``Sec. 621. The Secretary of Commerce (hereinafter the 
     ``Secretary'') is hereby authorized and directed to create an 
     ``Interagency Task Force on Indian Arts and Crafts 
     Enforcement'' to be composed of representatives of the U.S. 
     Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, the 
     Department of Interior, the Department of Justice, the 
     Department of Treasury, the International Trade 
     Administration, and representatives of other agencies and 
     departments in the discretion of the Secretary to devise and 
     implement a coordinated enforcement response to prevent the 
     sale or distribution of any product or goods sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not in compliance with 
     the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1935, as amended.''.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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. 1272

      (Purpose: To extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund)

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

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1272.

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

       At the end of title I, insert the following:

     SEC.   . EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Sections 310001(b) of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting 
     the following:
       (1) for fiscal year 2001, $6,025,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2002, $6,169,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 2003, $6,316,000,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 2004, $6,458,000,000; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2005, $6,616,000,000.
       (b) Discretionary Limits.--Title XXXI of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211 et 
     seq.) is amended by insering after section 310001 the 
     following:

     SEC. 310002. DISCRETIONARY LIMITS.

       For the purposes of allocations made for the discretionary 
     category pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)), the term `discretionary 
     spending limit'--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
       (A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category; 
     $6,025,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,718,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
       (A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category; 
     $6,169,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,020,000,000 in 
     outlays; and
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 2003--
       (A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $6,316,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,161,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       (4) with respect to fiscal year 2004--
       (A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category: $6,458,000 in 
     new budget authority and $6,303,000,000 in outlays; and
       (5) with respect to fiscal year 2005--
       (A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       (B) for the violent crime reduction category: $6,616,000 in 
     new budget authority and $6,452,000,000 in outlays;

     as adjusted in accordance with section 251(b) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)) and section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.'.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the violent crime 
trust fund. I understand there are some people who wish to speak on it. 
I ask unanimous consent that debate on this be limited to an hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as we know, the violent crime trust fund 
was set up back in 1993, and the concept of it was through savings 
which would occur as a result of the reduction in personnel in the 
Federal Government, that funding from those savings would be used to 
expand our efforts in fighting crime in this country.
  It has been a tremendous success. As a result of the violent crime 
trust fund, we have been able to undertake a significant expansion of 
the efforts of the FBI, the INS, the DEA, just to name a few at the 
Federal level, and also our local and community law enforcement, who 
are so important to us. This is critical. Without this trust fund, we 
might have some serious problems as we go down the road maintaining 
some of these efforts.
  The President is funding his Community Oriented Policing (COPS) 
Program from the violent crime reduction trust fund. Later, we are 
going to get from the other side an amendment which, I presume, deals 
with the COPS Program, but as a practical matter, I think we have 
resolved it. I do not think we are going to have a problem on this bill 
with the COPS Program. The COPS Program was a violent crime initiative, 
and a good one. It worked. I have to admit, I had suspicions about it 
when it was first offered, but it has worked out.
  We move on to other initiatives in the violent crime trust fund: 
terrorism initiatives; some initiatives to deal with the question of 
how the FBI is able to identify DNA; and initiatives with local 
communities, for their efforts to gear up with the technology of today. 
So, for example, when someone is arrested on the street, a law 
enforcement officer will have the computer capability to immediately 
contact the FBI, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and get 
a reading as to whom that person is and in what possible other activity 
he or she might be involved.
  These are critical expansions in our efforts in law enforcement 
across this country. They are proving to work well. As we move down the 
road, they will work even better, I am sure.
  We have a number of major initiatives at the Federal level. We just 
got our Integrated Automated Fingprint Identification System up and 
running, fingerprinting. The NCIC program is working now. And coming on 
line--it may take some more years than I would like--is something 
dealing with information sharing initiative (ISI) which will give 
Federal agents the computer capability they need to have instant access 
to what is going on nationally. This is an initiative that is very 
appropriate. There are a lot of other things that are going to make our 
law enforcement much more effective as it deals with crime in this 
Nation.
  In addition, of course, we have done a lot in the area of DEA and 
drug enforcement. The violent crime trust

[[Page S8947]]

fund plays a major role, and it is about to run out, so we should 
reauthorize it. That is why I have offered this authorization. I hope 
the Senate will agree to it.
  I suggest we set a vote for tomorrow, if that is all right with the 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest to the distinguished chairman that we limit 
the time to be equally divided.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Senator Biden and Senator Leahy wish to be heard on 
this in the morning. If it is all right with the distinguished 
chairman, we will reserve that time for the morning.
  Mr. GREGG. Why don't we reserve a half hour of the time on this 
amendment so it can be given to Senator Biden and Senator Leahy and 
they can take that time between them.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Good. They are ready, then, to lay down that amendment 
on COPS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that under the time 
agreement, no second-degree amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, tomorrow I will ask unanimous consent that 
all first-degree amendments be filed by noon. Hopefully, we can get an 
agreement on that. I am not asking it now.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We have to check on our side.
  Mr. GREGG. I am telling people so, hopefully, they will have their 
amendments together tonight, and staff will listen to this request and 
be all charged up to get their amendments down here by 12 o'clock 
tomorrow.

                          ____________________