[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 105 (Thursday, July 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9028-S9046]
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--Continued

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with regard to tonight, we need to just keep 
going forward. Senator Reid, as usual, is doing good work. The 
managers, Senator Judd Gregg and Senator Hollings, have been working. I 
think if we will be serious--and I don't think a lot of Senators are on 
either side--in trying to get this completed, we still have a raft of 
amendments that either need to be accepted or withdrawn.
  I tried to see if we could do the work in the daylight, and I tried 
to see if we could do it on Mondays or Fridays. None of that seems to 
suit the Senate. I think we ought to keep going as late as it takes to 
finish this legislation. That way, we can get it completed. So it is at 
your pleasure. I live on Capitol Hill, so I will be at home watching 
you all on TV and wishing you the best. When the votes are ready, I 
will come back and vote. It is up to the Senators. Do we get rid of 
this long list of amendments that Senator Reid and Senator Gregg have 
been working on and keep going on into the night, or we can come in 
tomorrow. I am flexible either way. We have to get this bill done. I 
think we ought to keep going.
  I hope Senators will get serious about getting rid of some of these 
amendments. There is no reason we shouldn't have another vote or two 
and final passage. I hope we can get that done. This is not aimed at 
one side or the other. It is on both sides. Let's get serious and 
complete this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I take a moment to thank the majority 
leader for his willingness to work with us and cooperate to the point 
that he has tonight to reach the agreement we have for Monday. I 
believe this is a fair compromise. We will have an opportunity to 
debate it, offer an amendment, and have the vote. We will also have the 
opportunity to have a good discussion about how we might proceed with 
agriculture disasters. I think this accommodates many of the concerns 
we have raised.
  I also must share his hope that we can finish this bill at a 
reasonable hour. It is 9 o'clock. There is no reason within the next 
hour we couldn't finish this bill. I appreciate especially the deputy 
minority leader for all of the work he has done to get us to this 
point. We are down to a couple of amendments on our side. I am hopeful 
we can finish. There is no reason we can't do it reasonably soon.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, what is the parliamentary 
situation right now on the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Gregg amendment, 
No. 1272.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to set that amendment aside and 
call up an amendment.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Iowa wants 
to discuss an amendment that has been agreed to for 6 minutes, is that 
so?
  Mr. HARKIN. About 6 minutes. I want to call it up first.
  Mr. GREGG. Is it necessary to call it up?
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to call up my amendment.
  Mr. REID. We are going to put it in the managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair cannot hear. We have quite a lot of 
racket here in left field. If we could take those conversations to the 
Cloakroom, it would sure help us proceed with the business at hand.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I was under the understanding I was going to bring up my 
amendment, I would talk for 5 minutes, they would accept it, and that 
would be the end of it.
  Mr. GREGG. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1304

  (Purpose: To provide $100,000,000 in Byrne grant funding offset by 
reducing funds for travel, supplies, and printing expenses in the bill 
   by 5.8 percent and cutting funds for preliminary work on possible 
                      Supreme Court improvements)

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask consent to set aside the pending amendment. I have

[[Page S9029]]

an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr. 
     Hatch, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Biden, 
     Mr. Johnson, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Bryan, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1304.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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 25, line 20, strike ``$452,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$552,100,000''.
       On page 66, line 20, strike ``$18,123,000'' and insert 
     ``$9,652,000''.
       On page 66, line 20, strike ``$15,222,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,751,000''.
       On page 111, after line 7, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The total discretionary amount made available 
     by this Act is reduced by $92,000,000: Provided, That the 
     reduction pursuant to this subsection shall be taken pro rata 
     from travel, supplies, and printing expenses made available 
     to the agencies funded by this Act, except for activities 
     related to the 2000 census.
       (b) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate a listing of the amounts by 
     account of the reductions made pursuant to the provisions of 
     subsection (a).

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bingaman, 
Mr. Biden, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
Feingold, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Bryan. I thank the managers of the 
bill for their willingness to accept this.
  What this amendment would do is restore the funding for the Edward 
Byrne Memorial Grant Program to the fiscal year 1999 level. In the bill 
before us, the Byrne grant was cut by $100 million from the fiscal year 
1999 level; I might point out, on a bipartisan basis. This was cut 
first by the President. It was kept in as the bill came to the floor.
  I am grateful they accepted this amendment because these grants go 
directly to local and State law enforcement. For fiscal year 1999, $552 
million was distributed to State and local law enforcement agencies 
through Byrne grants. But for fiscal year 2000, the Byrne grant was cut 
by the White House and by the initial actions before we got to the 
floor by more than 18 percent. This amendment would restore the fiscal 
year 1999 funding level for the Byrne program.
  The Byrne program is one of the most successful Federal anticrime 
programs ever. It pays for drug enforcement task forces, more cops on 
the streets, improved technology, and countless other valuable antidrug 
and anticrime efforts in local communities.
  Restoring the Byrne funds is a top priority of law enforcement groups 
who know the impact the program has had on crime and drugs. The 
National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' 
Association, and the International Association of Police Chiefs have 
all contacted me, urging full funding of this program.
  I have received dozens of letters from Iowa police chiefs and 
sheriffs describing the kinds of setbacks they would suffer if these 
cuts go through. The Byrne grant provides critical staff and resources 
for Iowa's 24 drug enforcement task forces working to stem the 
methamphetamine epidemic in the region.
  Iowa and the Midwest have made great strides in reducing 
methamphetamine production and supply over the last few years. The 
proposed cuts to the Byrne program would only set them back in their 
uphill battle.
  Sgt. Tom Andrew, head of the Southeast Iowa Inter-Agency Drug Task 
Force that covers six rural counties, wrote me saying that his task 
force was made possible through the Byrne grant. Without it, most of 
the small agencies in that region would lack the manpower, funds, 
training, and technology necessary to combat the methamphetamine 
problem. Sergeant Andrew said:

       A funding cut of this magnitude would have a detrimental 
     effect on our program and would, in all probability, result 
     in the elimination of the task force.

  I have heard this story over and over again from my contacts in Iowa. 
These drug task forces are funded primarily by the Byrne grants, and 
they are desperately needed to fight our State's battles against 
methamphetamine use. I know this is the case in most States across the 
country.
  We just cannot afford to have an 18-percent cut in the Byrne grants 
in our States next year. It makes no sense to cut such a successful 
program that directly benefits our local communities.
  I thank the managers for accepting this amendment, and I trust we 
will keep the Byrne memorial grants at least at the same level next 
year as they were this year.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Kansas also for his strong support 
of this program. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to add my comments in support of 
this amendment that Senator Harkin has put forward. I think it is a 
good way of doing it. Here is a program that puts money directly back 
to the States for law enforcement; lets them decide. We take this out 
of travel and office supplies over the rest of the bill. I think it is 
much better we spend the money back in Iowa, in Kansas, in our various 
States, rather than on travel and printing here in Washington. That is 
a good trade. That is a good way to go. That is why I supported this 
amendment, and I am glad to hear the managers are willing to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1304) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. 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 California.


                           Amendment No. 1305

  (Purpose: To prohibit the transfer of a firearm or ammunition to an 
                          intoxicated person)

  Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1305.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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 111, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 6   . PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF A FIREARM TO AN 
                   INTOXICATED PERSON.

       (a) Prohibition of Transfer.--Section 922(d) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs 
     (9) and (10), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) is intoxicated;''.
       (b) Definition of Intoxicated.--Section 921(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(35) The term `intoxicated', in reference to a person, 
     means being in a mental or physical condition of impairment 
     as a result of the presence of alcohol in the body of the 
     person.''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am happy to make my remarks very brief 
because I understand this amendment will be accepted. I ask, if it is 
OK with the managers, if I can have 3 minutes to explain the amendment 
before it is accepted?
  Mr. GREGG. I ask consent the Senator from California have 3 minutes 
and the Senator from Idaho have 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very relieved that we are seeing an 
acceptance of this amendment. It is so straightforward.
  Under current Federal law, you cannot sell a gun to any person if the 
seller knows or has reason to believe any of the following, that the 
buyer is: a felon, a fugitive, an addict of a controlled substance, is 
mentally ill, is an illegal immigrant, has been dishonorably discharged 
from the military, has renounced his or her American citizenship, is 
subject to a court order on domestic violence or has been convicted of 
a domestic violence misdemeanor.

[[Page S9030]]

  Already under current law anyone selling such a person a weapon, who 
knows, or has reason to believe this, cannot do that. All we are adding 
to this is: a person who is intoxicated. This is very simple. I am so 
pleased we are going to see this accepted. Senator Craig is going to 
make some comments.
  But I want to talk about one case, a story about a woman named 
Deborah Kitchen, who is a quadriplegic, and she got that way because 
her ex-boyfriend shot her.
  Tom Knapp consumed, by his own estimate, a fifth of whiskey and a 
case of beer. He went to K-mart in Florida to buy a .22-caliber rifle 
and a box of bullets. He was so intoxicated that the clerk had to help 
him fill out the Federal form required to purchase the gun, but he 
still bought the rifle, he shot his girlfriend, and left her a 
quadriplegic.
  Let me tell you another story. This one is from Michigan. It involves 
an 18-year-old named Walter McKay, who had engaged in a day-long 
drinking spree and then went and bought ammunition for his shotgun. He 
was so intoxicated that he could not remember whether it was a man or 
woman who sold him the ammunition and could not identify what he 
purchased.
  He took those shotgun shells, loaded his gun, and intended to shoot 
out of the back window of an acquaintance's truck. He was intoxicated. 
The shot missed, ricocheted off the wheel of the truck, and hit Anthony 
Buczkowski. Mr. Buczkowski had to have a finger amputated and his left 
wrist surgically fused.
  To me, it flies in the face of common sense that someone who is 
intoxicated is able to buy a gun or ammunition. And it flies in the 
face of the evidence.
  A 1997 study in the Journal of American Medical Association found 
that ``alcohol and illicit drug use appear to be associated with an 
increased risk of violent death.''
  Yet, Mr. Knapp and Mr. McKay could buy a gun and ammunition because 
it is not--I repeat, not--against the law to sell a gun to someone who 
is intoxicated. Gun sales are largely regulated at the federal level. 
Gun sales involve Federal licenses and federal forms. This is a Federal 
responsibility, and there should be a Federal law that stops this 
outrage.
  So, my amendment makes it against federal law to sell a firearm or 
ammunition if the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe that 
the buyer is intoxicated.
  I want to talk about for a minute about one of the items on the list. 
Notice that the current federal law includes a prohibition on the sale 
of a gun to a drug user.
  In fact, the way the law is worded, you do not even need to be high 
on drugs at the time you buy the gun. If the seller knows or has 
reasonable cause to believe that you are a user or addict of an illegal 
drug--regardless of whether you are high at the moment the gun is 
purchased--he is not supposed to sell you a gun.
  So, I say to my colleagues, if you cannot buy a gun when you are high 
on drugs, you should not be able to buy a gun when you are intoxicated 
on alcohol.
  That is all my amendment does.
  I want to make one more point. And that is about what an individual 
cannot do when he or she is intoxicated.
  States and localities have all sorts of laws that prohibit 
intoxicated people from engaging in certain activities and buying 
certain things that are otherwise legal.
  There are State laws that prohibit people from serving alcohol to 
someone who is intoxicated, selling fireworks to someone who is 
intoxicated, and renting an intoxicated person a car.
  But in reviewing State laws, we could not find a single State that 
prohibited the sale of guns to intoxicated persons. So this amendment--
which prohibits it under federal law--is really critical.
  Guns and alcohol do not mix. And all I am saying with this amendment 
is that if you are intoxicated, you cannot buy a gun or ammunition. It 
is very reasonable, and it will save lives.
  In many States in this Union, if you are drunk you cannot drive a 
car, operate a boat, operate a snowmobile, fly a plane, even get on a 
plane, operate an all-terrain vehicle, ride a bike, and in West 
Virginia you cannot even obtain a tattoo if you are drunk. But you can 
go in and buy a gun.
  So I think this is a really important step forward as we try to pass 
sensible gun control legislation. It is common sense. I am very pleased 
it has been accepted, and I am happy to yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, at this time we are taking a close look at 
the Boxer amendment. I have visited with the Senator from California. 
She is being very straightforward with this amendment. No one out there 
wants to suggest that anybody in the legitimate business of selling 
guns in a legal fashion should sell one to an intoxicated person.
  I am concerned about the section of the code she is amending as it 
relates to penalties. I certainly do not believe any of us would 
suggest that anybody in a retail business who sells guns within the 
context of the Federal law becomes an alcohol expert or has 
breathalyzer equipment or any of that kind of thing at the point of 
sale. We want to make sure that is clear, because that is asking a 
nonprofessional to make a professional determination that could 
ultimately put them in tremendous liability, up to 10 years in prison. 
We want to make sure that is perfectly clear.
  I said to the Senator from California we will work with her to assure 
that going into conference, that section of the code is clarified so 
her amendment is as clear as, obviously, she intends it to be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friends and say that clearly we 
are not suggesting in any way, shape, or form that people who are in 
the retail business and sell guns should have a breathalyzer. We are 
merely adding to this list a person who is intoxicated.
  Clearly, under current law, you do not have to be a psychiatrist or 
you do not have to have a psychiatrist on your staff at K Mart, if you 
sell guns, to determine if someone is mentally ill. The way 18 U.S.C. 
922(d) reads is you have to know or have reasonable cause to believe. 
It is a pretty broad definition.
  I hope Senator Craig, in working with us, will recognize we are not 
doing anything different than we do for all of these other problem 
areas. It is just going to make the law stronger and better. We will 
stop people, such as Thomas Knapp, from walking in and buying a gun 
dead drunk, flat-out drunk, going home, and injuring a perfectly 
innocent person, in this case a loving person. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment?
  The amendment (No. 1305) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. 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. 1306

(Purpose: To ensure that parties to the tuna convention pay their fair 
 share of the expenses of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 
      before they are allowed to export tuna to the United States)

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

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1306.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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:

       On page 83, at the end of line 19, before the period insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That of the amounts made 
     available for the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in 
     Fiscal Year 2000, not more than $2,350,000 may be obligated 
     and expended: Provided further, That no tuna may be imported 
     in any year from any High Contracting Party to the Convention 
     establishing the Commission (TIAS 2044; 1 UST 231) unless the 
     Party has paid a share of the joint expenses of the 
     Commission proportionate to the share of the total catch from 
     the previous year from the fisheries covered by the 
     Convention which is utilized by that Party''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we need to have a 
time agreement established on this amendment. The Senator from 
California has indicated she needs 30 minutes.

[[Page S9031]]

  Mr. GREGG. I suggest, then, we have 45 minutes on this amendment: 30 
minutes to the Senator from California, 15 minutes in opposition.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I may not take the entire 30 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. It will be very helpful to a lot of people, I suspect, if 
we can move this amendment along.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am hopeful we can get through this.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from California, I am 
in touch with the Senator from Delaware, and he is going to make a 
decision soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the reason I need a little time is that 
this is a complicated situation we are facing and it involves the whole 
issue of dolphin protection versus trade versus countries that owe 
money to the Tuna Commission and are not at this point paying their 
fair share. I will explain all of this.
  All my amendment says is that until the Latin American countries pay 
their fair share to the Tuna Commission, they should not be allowed to 
export their tuna into this country.
  The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has set these laws. It 
says that each member country to the Commission must pay its required 
share to the Commission and makes it clear that if they do not pay as 
required by current law, they may not export tuna into the United 
States.
  Right now in this appropriations bill--and I think this is very 
important--our contribution is way too large. We are picking up the 
contribution of the Latin American countries. The contribution of each 
country is supposed to be based on the percentage of the catch in the 
eastern tropical Pacific. Our catch at maximum has been 40 percent, and 
yet in this bill, we are paying 75 percent of the total cost of the 
Commission.
  I do not mind being Uncle Sam, but I object to being Uncle Sucker, 
and that is what we are doing. We should not be picking up the tab for 
countries that want the privilege of exporting their tuna into our 
markets.
  There are three principal benefits from this amendment which, by the 
way, is cosponsored by Senator Biden, Senator John Kerry, Senator 
Durbin, Senator Feingold, and Senator Reid.
  One, the amendment forces countries to pay their fair share of 
expenses which they committed to do when they signed on to the 
Commission.

  Two, the amendment will delay the importation of tuna that is caught 
by chasing and circling dolphins. It will stop that importation because 
we know that purse seining on dolphin hurts and harm the dolphin. There 
was a huge boycott in this country by the schoolchildren a long time 
ago because purse seining was seen by them and by many Americans as 
being wrong: harass the dolphin, chase the dolphin because they happen 
to swim over the tuna, then they encircle them, catch them in the net 
and a lot of them are harmed, some of them are killed. If we delay the 
importation of tuna that is caught in this fashion, we will be saving 
the dolphin.
  Third, because we put a freeze on the amount of money that can be 
paid by the United States, or I should say be limited to $2.35 million, 
we are saving about $1 million, and that $1 million can go to a host of 
other places and commissions that deal with fisheries conservation.
  It is important to note that the Tuna Commission is involved in many 
activities that affect all the member nations. Why should we be picking 
up the tab for them? There are costs associated with this commission, 
and the convention clearly indicated that each Nation should pay its 
fair share. It says the countries that fish more in this particular 
part of the ocean should pay more.
  The convention states:

       The proportion of joint expenses to be paid by each High 
     Contacting Party shall be related to the proportion of the 
     total catch from the fisheries covered by this Convention * * 
     *

  This was decided in 1949, but it still makes sense. Countries are 
required to pay a share of expenses relative to their utilization of 
the fisheries.
  The United States has always paid its fair share, but this year, for 
some unknown reason, we are paying the share of these other nations. We 
are not the largest beneficiary of tuna from the eastern tropical 
Pacific, and we should not be paying 75 percent of the cost. It must 
stop. Other countries should be carrying their own weight on this and, 
frankly, when we had our big debate over purse seining on dolphins and 
changing the label that goes on the tuna can--and many of us who really 
did not like this law went along with it--we went along with it in part 
because finally at least it recognized that these other countries have 
to pay their fair share, and now they are not doing it.
  And these countries are purse seining the dolphin. They are harming 
the dolphin. We have seen a decline, since that tuna labeling bill went 
into effect, of 80,000 dolphin a year killed down to 5,000. Now, 
unfortunately, we lost that battle. This tuna that is caught in Latin 
American countries is going to come in, and these countries are not 
paying their fair share of the costs of the Commission.
  So I think it is very important that we agree to this amendment. It 
isn't right that other countries are not paying their fair share. 
Frankly, it isn't right that other countries are encircling the 
dolphin, killing the dolphin, maiming the dolphin, and they want to 
come in to our market, and they want to come in without doing anything 
to pay their share.
  Scientists, consumers, and tuna companies agree that chasing and 
netting is not safe for dolphins. The dolphin population in the eastern 
tropical Pacific are not recovering. And the harassment by these 
fishermen is a tremendous problem that is affecting dolphin 
reproduction. So what do we do? Instead of trying to encourage safe 
fishing methods, we say to the other countries: Just do not worry. Send 
this tuna in. We will even pay your share of the cost of the 
International Tuna Commission.
  I understand that Senator Biden is on his way over, so I reserve the 
remainder of my time for him. I am happy to yield to the other side who 
is opposing us on this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  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. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN. Mr. President, my friend from California, the 
distinguished Senator, Mrs. Boxer, feels a sense of compassion about a 
number of things, one of which is this amendment, and the way in which 
she, for the past 15 years, has been fighting and successfully, for the 
most part.
  I have been at her side to make sure we, quite frankly, keep dolphins 
from being killed unnecessarily. It sounds like a simplistic message, 
but it is as basic as that.
  What happened is we got rolled last year by the administration and by 
the Senate because there are more votes here. We had the Dolphin 
Protection Act in place. I will not take the time to discuss it now. 
Actually, it was basically eviscerated by what took place.
  I was not particularly pleased with Vice President Gore's position on 
this, the administration's position, nor the position of my 
distinguished friend whom I respect very much, Senator Breaux, and the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska. That was a formidable array we 
faced, and we essentially lost.
  What did we do last year? Last year, we did basically what the treaty 
said, and said: Look, we have this mechanism set up where everybody 
pays their fair share to make it work. The treaty says that. And I will 
again, in the interest of time, not recite the elements of the treaty 
which say that and point out how the following sentence can be 
distinguished that lays out the proportional requirement to participate 
in this.
  But the bottom line is very simple. We made an agreement last year 
involving countries in question. They said they agreed, the 
administration promised, and the Senate said everybody will pay their 
fair share. Simple. Wrong.

[[Page S9032]]

  We are paying 70 percent or more of the administration of this 
arrangement, and we should only be paying 40 percent. The distinguished 
Senator from California comes along and says: Hey, look, let's make it 
50 percent. We will pay more than we should, but not this 
disproportionate amount. And if they do not pay as they promised, they 
should not get the benefits that flow from the agreement that 
encompasses their participation.
  So it is real simple, I say to my distinguished friend from South 
Carolina, who asked me to be brief. I will be brief. This is not fair. 
The Senator from California is right. She is willing to have us pay 
more than our fair share but not essentially twice what our fair share 
is.
  So I support the amendment, and I hope the managers of the bill may 
see fit, based on their sense of justice and their notion of fairness, 
to accept the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend, Senator Biden. So many years ago we 
teamed up to make sure that the dolphin were protected. He has stuck 
with me through this battle, along with his daughter Ashley.
  Senator Harry Reid would like to be added as a cosponsor. I ask 
unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield to my friend, Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California for her leadership on 
this issue. It is late at night. People do not want to talk about this. 
They want to go home. Some of us will go home and eat tuna salad. And 
if you eat tuna in your household, you bear some responsibility. You 
hope that your children will have that opportunity, and you hope that 
the fisheries around the world are going to be handled responsibly.
  We passed a law here in 1997 and said: We are going to do what we can 
to conserve the dolphin which have become victims of those who are 
fishing for tuna--international convention, international agreement, 
dolphin conservation. And we said: If you happen to be one of the 
countries fishing for tuna that may endanger the dolphin, we are going 
to make you participate, spend some money to make sure this program 
works based on the percentage of your catch. That is a very reasonable 
program, conserving the dolphin, saying to each country: Pay your fair 
share based on what you catch.
  I live in the Midwest. I do not live near an ocean. But I get it. I 
understand this. I just cannot understand why in this bill--before the 
amendment by the Senator from California--that we are suggesting the 
United States should pay more than its share.
  There are countries here, for example, that are paying nothing.
  Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.
  Mr. DURBIN. Costa Rica, 7.6 percent of the catch, proportion of 
payments, zero; Venezuela, 16.2 percent of the catch, proportion of 
payments, zero; Ecuador, 26.3 percent of the catch, proportion of 
payments, zero.
  Why aren't these countries paying their fair share, their fishery 
industry fishing for tuna, signatories to this agreement? They should 
be paying their share instead of being subsidized by the United States.
  I think we should take the money saved by the Senator from California 
and dedicate it to a lot of other international fishery efforts that 
are listed within this legislation. I am happy to support her 
amendment. I think it is eminently fair. I hope those listening to the 
debate will join us in making certain that every country lives up to 
its obligation.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank all my friends tonight for helping 
this through. I know when it gets this late, people get upset with you 
for trying to pass amendments and continuing to work because everyone 
is exhausted. I am, too.
  I want to be clear for the Record, I was willing to debate this on 
Friday and put off the vote until Monday night, but we were unable to 
reach that kind of agreement.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of the 
countries and what they have been paying.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

           Tuna/Dolphin Amendment to CJS Appropriations Bill

       Question 1. How much were we intending to pay according to 
     the State Department budget request?
       Answer. $3.4 million.
       Question 2. What is the total proposed budget for the 
     IATTC?
       Answer. $4.7 million.
       Question 3. What proportion of the IATTC budget is the 
     State Department request? What is the U.S. proportion of tuna 
     utilization?
       Answer. U.S. proposed proportion of the budget is 72%; U.S. 
     tuna utilization is approximately 40%.
       Question 4. How many nations are members of the IATTC and 
     who are they?
       Answer. 11 members: Costa Rica, Panama, Japan, France, 
     Nicaragua, Vanuatu, Venezuela, El Salvador, Ecuador, Mexico 
     and the United States.
       Question 5. What is the estimated utilization of each 
     nation and how much to they pay?
       Answer. The most recent data that has been compiled on 
     utilization is from 1996. According to those figures, the 
     breakdown is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Proportion  Proportion
                                                      of          of
                    Country                      utilization   payments
                                                  (percent)    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States..................................         39.6       91.4
France.........................................          1          9
Japan..........................................          9          7.7
Nicaragua......................................          0          0
Panama.........................................          0           .01
Costa Rica.....................................          7.6        0
Vanuatu........................................          0           .01
Venezuela......................................         16.2        0
Ecuador........................................         26.3        0
El Salvador....................................          0          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. BOXER. The United States portion of its catch and utilization is 
less than 40 percent, yet it has been paying 91 percent of the cost of 
the Commission. As my friend pointed out, there are nations here--
Ecuador is catching 26 percent, and they are paying nothing. So what 
are we doing here?
  I know these countries are our friends, but the taxpayers are our 
friends, too, besides which, these countries are purse seining on 
dolphin, and they are hurting those beautiful creatures. So why are we 
in such a rush to cover their payments and let them bring in this tuna?
  My last point is another point my friend from Illinois made. He 
usually hits the nail on the head; he has done it again. Here are some 
of the other commissions that could benefit from the $1 million we are 
saving in this amendment: the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Pacific 
Salmon Commission, International Pacific Halibut Commission, 
International Whaling Commission--it goes on and on--North Atlantic 
Salmon Conservation Organization, North Pacific Marine Science 
Organization, Inter-American Sea Turtle Convention Commission, 
Commission for the Conservation of Highly Migratory Species in the 
Western and Central Pacific Ocean.
  Here we see that what we are doing is taking money from our taxpayers 
to pay for the Latin American countries that are going to get away with 
not paying their bill, and still they are allowed, unless we pass this 
Boxer-Biden-Kerry amendment, to export their tuna into this country--I 
want to underscore--unlike the American companies, that are really good 
to the dolphin and use safe fishing practices. They will bring their 
tuna in after purse seining dolphin, harassing the dolphin, killing 
them, maiming them, harming them, hurting their reproductive capacity.
  With this amendment, I think we do a lot of good things. We save 
money, we help other commissions, and we stand up to our friends in 
Latin America and say: Pay the bills.
  I yield to my friend from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
California--I think she makes an outstanding case--as I remember it, 
isn't this the compromise agreement made with the opposition, that 
these amounts would be paid by these countries, some 2 years ago?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. This is the compromise we agreed to back 2 years ago.

[[Page S9033]]

 What you are trying to do by your amendment is merely to enforce the 
compromise with those opposed to us in the first instance.
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is exactly on target. When we reached this 
compromise, which wasn't a happy compromise for us, one of the clear 
understandings was that as these countries sought to export their tuna, 
which has been banned from this country, as my friend knows, for a long 
time, because of their fishing methods which are so cruel to the 
dolphin, we said: If you have to bring this tuna in, then pay your fair 
share of the commission.
  Essentially, if you look at the public law that we did pass, you will 
find it exactly here. In order for them to export, such nation, the 
section says, ``is meeting the obligation of the International Dolphin 
Conservation Program and the obligations of membership, including all 
financial obligations.''
  This is the law Senator Stevens agreed to, Senator Breaux agreed to, 
Senator Gregg agreed to, and all of us--sad that we were that we didn't 
win what we wanted--agreed to. Now they are not paying their fair 
share, and they still say, well, let them export their tuna. This is 
wrong.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is the reason I wanted to make the point. I 
understand a motion to table may be made. I hope we won't table it. The 
Senator from California is only making real the compromise agreement 
entered into some 2 years ago with the opposition.
  I thank the Senator for her leadership.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am happy to yield back the remainder of 
my time. I think we have made our point.
  What we are doing is essentially, with this amendment, enforcing the 
agreement that everyone agreed to. If they don't come on board on this, 
I think it makes this agreement and this public law completely 
worthless. I hope people will support this amendment. It is good for 
taxpayers, and it is good for the dolphin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I move to table the Boxer 
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.
  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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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. 1307, Withdrawn

(Purpose: To reduce amounts appropriated by the bill and make available 
     funds for the international criminal tribunals for the former 
                         Yugoslavia and Rwanda)

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I have 
discussed this with the manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will take unanimous consent.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana wants to discuss 
the amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  I will not ask for a vote tonight on this. I have discussed this with 
the manager, but I want to call it to the attention of the Senate. It 
is something Senator Specter and I have worked on, along with many 
others on both sides, dealing with monies to properly fund the War 
Crimes Tribunal.
  It has come to our attention that even though we were successful in 
putting some additional funding into the War Crimes Tribunal for all 
the situations occurring in Kosovo, some of the money, sort of the 
standard amount of money that we spend on war crimes, is not present in 
the current bill we are discussing.
  I wanted to offer an amendment to restore it. Given the late hour, 
given the tight constraints, I have talked with the Senator, and he 
said they will try to work this out at conference. I bring it to the 
attention of the Senate to thank him for his consideration.
  At this time I will withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1307.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 89, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       sec. 408. (a) Each of the amounts appropriated by this Act 
     (other than the accounts specified in subsection (b)) shall 
     be reduced by the percentage that results in a total 
     reduction in appropriations under this Act of $20,000,000.
       (b) In addition to the amounts appropriated by this Act 
     under the following accounts, there are hereby appropriated 
     under such accounts, out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, the following amounts for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Fro ``Contributions to International Organizations'', 
     $7,000,000, which amount shall be available only for 
     contributions to the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
     former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for 
     Rwanda.
       (2) For ``Contributions for International Peacekeeping 
     Activities'', $13,000,000, which amount shall be available 
     only for contributions to the International Criminal Tribunal 
     for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal 
     Tribunal for Rwanda.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment 
be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  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.


               Amendments Nos. 1308 Through 1341, En Bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there are at the desk 34 amendments that 
are in order under a previous unanimous consent agreement. These 34 
amendments have been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that they be 
recorded separately and agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1308 through 1341), en bloc, were agreed to.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1308

       On page 8, line 13, strike ``$25,000,000'' and insert 
     $27,000,000''.
       On page 8, line 23, insert before the period: ``; and of 
     which $1,000,000 shall be for the task force coordinated by 
     the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern 
     District of Wisconsin, and $1,000,000 shall be for the task 
     forces coordinated by the Office of the United States 
     Attorney for the Western District of New York and task forces 
     coordinated by the Office of the United States Attorney for 
     the Northern District of New York''.
       On page 19, line 23, after the colon, insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That any Border Patrol agent classified 
     in a GS-1896 position who completes a one-year period of 
     service at a GS-9 grade and whose current rating of record is 
     fully successful or higher shall be classified at a GS-11 
     grade and receive pay at the minimum rate of basic pay for a 
     GS-11 position: Provided further, That the Commissioner shall 
     have the authority to provide a language proficiency bonus, 
     as a recruitment incentive, to graduates of the Border Patrol 
     Academy from funds otherwise provided for language training: 
     [Provided further, the Commissioner shall fully coordinate 
     and link all Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     databases, including IDENT, with databases of the Department 
     of Justice and other federal law enforcement agencies 
     containing information on criminal histories and records of 
     prior deportations:] Provided further, That the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service shall only accept cash or a 
     cashier's check when receiving or processing applications for 
     benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act:''.
       On page 27, line 15, after ``Initiative,'' insert the 
     following: ``of which $500,000 is available for a new truck 
     safety initiative in the State of New Jersey,''.
       On page 27, line 15, after ``Initiative,'' insert the 
     following: ``of which $100,000 shall be used to award a grant 
     to Charles Mix County, South Dakota, to upgrade the 911 
     emergency telephone system,''.
       On page 29, line 16, before the semicolon, insert the 
     following: ``, of which $300,000 shall be used to award a 
     grant to the Wakpa Sica Historical Society''.
       On page 32, line 23, strike ``:'' and insert the following: 
     ``, of which $500,000 shall be made available for the Youth 
     Advocacy Program:''.

[[Page S9034]]

       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       ``Sec. _. No funds provided in this Act may be used by the 
     Office of Justice Programs to support a grant to pay for 
     State and local law enforcement overtime in extraordinary, 
     emergency situations unless the Appropriations Committees of 
     both Houses of Congress are notified in accordance with the 
     procedures contained in Section 605 of this Act.''.
       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       ``Sec. _. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Attorney General shall grant a national interest 
     waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)(B)) on behalf of any 
     alien physician with respect to whom a petition for 
     preference classification has been filed under section 
     203(b)(2)(A) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)(A)) if--
       (1) the alien physician seeks to work in an area designated 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a 
     shortage of health care professionals or at a health care 
     facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs; and
       (2) a Federal agency or a State department of public health 
     has previously determined that the alien physician's work in 
     such an area or at such facility was in the public 
     interest.''.
       On page 57, line 16, delete ``$1,776,728,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof: ``$1,782,728,000''; and
       On page 57, line 17, before the colon, insert ``, of which 
     $6,000,000 shall be used by the National Ocean Service as 
     response and restoration funding for coral reef assessment, 
     monitoring, and restoration, and from available funds, 
     $1,000,000 shall be made available for essential fish habitat 
     activities, and $250,000 shall be made available for a bull 
     trout habitat conservation plan''.
       On page 58, line 20, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     proceed as he deems necessary to have the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration occupy and operate its 
     research facilities which are located at Lafayette, 
     Louisiana''.
       On page 66, line 15, delete ``$34,759,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$35,903,000''.
       On page 66, line 20, delete ``$18,123,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$8,002,000''.
       On page 66, line 20, delete ``$15,222,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$5,101,000''.
       On page 73, line 6, insert before the period: ``: Provided, 
     That $9,611,000 is appropriated for salary adjustments 
     pursuant to this section and such funds shall be transferred 
     to and merged with appropriations in Title III of this Act.''
       On page 88, line 17, strike ``may'' and insert ``should''.
       On page 98, line 24 delete ``$251,300,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$246,300,000''.
       On page 100, line 2, strike ``(d)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``(e)''.
       On page 100, line 9, strike ``.'', insert the following:
       ``: Provided further, That during fiscal year 2000, 
     debentures guaranteed under Title III of the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed the 
     amount authorized under section 20(e)(1)(C)(ii).''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1309

    (Purpose: To provide for security for certain federal personnel)

       At an appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . For fiscal year 2000, the Director of the United 
     States Marshals Service shall, within available funds, 
     provide a magnetometer and not less than one qualified guard 
     at each unsecured entrance to the real property (including 
     offices, buildings, and related grounds and facilities) that 
     is leased to the United States as a place of employment for 
     Federal employees at 625 Silver, S.W., in Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1310

    (Purpose: To provide funds to carry out the drug-free workplace 
                         demonstration program)

       On page 99, line 9, insert before the period the following: 
     ``Provided further, That $1,800,000 shall be made available 
     to carry out the drug-free workplace demonstration program 
     under section 27 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 654)''.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, my amendment ensures the Small Business 
Administration's Drug-Free Workplace demonstration moves forward. I 
want to thank Senators Kyl, Sessions, Abraham, DeWine and Snowe for 
joining me in this effort. I also want to express my sincere 
appreciation to Senators Bond, Gregg, and Hollings, as well as their 
staffs for their cooperation.
  Last year, the Drug Free Workplace Act received broad bipartisan 
support when it was enacted. The House passed it 402-9, and the Senate 
Committee on Small Business endorsed it without opposition. We see this 
program as a critical opportunity to assist small businesses who are 
grappling with the hardships of drug abuse in the workplace.
  The funding included in the FY2000 Commerce, Justice, State 
Appropriations bill, will enable these demonstrations to go forward. 
The Small Business Administration's initial grant applications indicate 
there is tremendous need for drug-free workplace programs. It has been 
reported that no less than 146 qualified grant applications were 
submitted to SBA for FY1999 funding, but no more than 30 will be 
funded. At least 116 of these qualified potential drug-free workplace 
demonstration programs will go unfunded leaving $12 million in unmet 
need.
  Again, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure the 
Drug-Free Workplace demonstration continues to receive the support of 
Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters demonstrating my point be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 Drug Free America


                                             Foundation, Inc.,

                                                     July 8, 1999.
     Hon. Jon L. Kyl,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: It is my understanding that you and 
     Senator Coverdell intend to offer an amendment to the 
     Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill that would 
     earmark the $6 million necessary to complete the Drug-Free 
     Workplace Demonstration. I would like to commend both of you 
     for your efforts on this issue.
       Having worked with you ongoing on the drug issue, I know 
     how important it is to you to fight this problem on every 
     front possible. The workplace is truly a significant front 
     where the battle can be waged. If you consider what makes up 
     a community, you will note that most segments are a workplace 
     of some type. We have schools, churches, social services, law 
     enforcement, private industry, and the public sector--all of 
     which are workplaces. These workplaces provide the perfect 
     opportunity, through drug-free workplace programs, to access 
     our adult population and educate them on the problems 
     associated with drug and alcohol abuse, to intervene on those 
     with problems, and to provide needed treatment to those 
     already addicted.
       Over the last ten years, employers have made tremendous 
     progress in addressing drug and alcohol abuse in the 
     workplace. Back in 1986, when I owned a drug testing company, 
     I found the positive drug rate in the workplaces of some 
     communities to be as high as 38 percent. That rate has fallen 
     significantly to below 10 percent. I know from personal 
     testimonies of employees that many casual users ceased to use 
     illicit drugs when their employers began drug testing because 
     they valued their jobs. These individuals, of course, will 
     not become addicted to drugs because they have ceased to use. 
     Their employers' drug-free workplace programs did indeed 
     serve as an effective deterrent to drug use. I also know many 
     employees who have received treatment for drug and alcohol 
     addictions as a result of drug-free workplace programs.
       There is a concern, however, for small employers. While the 
     larger companies have implemented very effective, proactive 
     drug-free workplace programs, many small employers have not 
     done so due to financial limitations. I fear that this has 
     resulted in many drug users, who cannot work in the larger 
     companies due to being subject to testing, going to work in 
     smaller companies that do not address the problem of drugs. 
     Having been a small business owner, I know what a struggle it 
     can be to manage a small business and keep it financially 
     afloat. Since drug abusers typically are involved in more 
     accidents, file more workers' compensation claims, are absent 
     more often, and use more leave, they surely take an 
     unnecessary financial toll on our small employers.
       The Drug-Free Workplace Demonstration grant monies are 
     greatly needed in order to assist small employers in 
     implementing and maintaining proper drug-free workplace 
     programs to minimize the probability of having drug-using 
     employees. An additional benefit would, of course, be the 
     family members of these employees. When an employee has a 
     drug or alcohol problem, it negatively affects the entire 
     family. If an employer can deter or detect and correct the 
     problem with an employee, everyone benefits.
       Please consider me a resource and let me know what I can do 
     to support your proposed amendment.
           Regards,
     Calvina L. Fay.
                                  ____

                                                   Arizonans for a


                                          Drug-Free Workplace,

                                        Tucson, AZ, June 25, 1999.
       As a drug-free workplace initiative, representing a 
     coalition of over 3,000 businesses, the majority of which are 
     small businesses, we are requesting your help for the drug-
     free workplace demonstration project.
       We are asking that you support funding the remaining $6 
     million of appropriated funds for the Small Business 
     Administration in support of this very important drug-free 
     workplace demonstration program.
       The need and demand for drug-free workplace resources is 
     growing, while the available resources are shrinking. It is 
     business, and small business in particular, that contributes 
     greatly and supports the economy of this country. It is time 
     for these small businesses to get the help needed to stop the 
     high costs brought about by substance abuse in the workplace. 
     You have an opportunity to make drug-free workplace a reality 
     for many small businesses in this country.

[[Page S9035]]

       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Regards,
                                                Elizabeth Edwards,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                             The Council on Alcohol and Drugs,

                                       Houston, TX, June 28, 1999.
     Re. Support for Continued Drug-Free Workplace Funding.
       I am writing to request your support for continued funding 
     for the 1998 Drug-Free Workplace demonstration project. The 
     remaining $6 million of appropriated funds for this project 
     is critical if we are to continue to provide assistance to 
     our small business community to help them eliminate substance 
     abuse in the workplace. As you know, small businesses employ 
     over 50% of the nation's workforce. These businesses are at 
     increased risk for on the job accidents, absenteeism, 
     turnover, and many other factors related to substance abuse 
     in the workplace.
       The Drug-Free Business Alliance represents a coalition of 
     over 1,000 businesses, the majority of which are small 
     businesses. For the past fifteen years we have been providing 
     education and assistance to small businesses in the Houston 
     community to help them reduce the risks and costs associated 
     with on the job substance abuse. There are still thousands of 
     small businesses in need of our services. The $6 million in 
     remaining funding is critical if drug-free workplace 
     coalitions are to continue to provide services to the 
     thousands of small businesses in need of drug-free workplace 
     services.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Becky Vance,
     Director, Drug-Free Business Alliance.
                                  ____

       I am writing to seek your support for the continuation of 
     funding for the 1998 Drug Free Workplace Act which provides 
     for funds for demonstration grants.
       Drug Free Pennsylvania has operated a drug-free workplace 
     initiative since 1993 called the Drugs Don't Work Here 
     program. We have helped hundreds of employees adopt a drug-
     free workplace program and provide them with the technical 
     assistance and training. Our program is one of the most 
     successful and strongest in the nation. Our success is due to 
     the strength of our board members and the services which we 
     offer to small employers including policy development, a drug 
     testing consortium, an employee assistance consortium, 
     training and technical assistance for supervisors, and 
     education materials for employees.
       Unfortunately, in the past, the problem of substance 
     abusing employees was overlooked to fund other youth-targeted 
     programs. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998 raises the 
     drug-free workplace component on the federal government radar 
     screen and should not be compromised by a funding cut in this 
     budget cycle. I would urge you to continue to funding of the 
     Drug Free Workplace Act of 1998 at or above the funding level 
     originally intended for this program. The resources to assist 
     small business needs to come from non-profit organizations 
     such as ours and should not be set aside after only one year 
     of funding.
       As I am sure you know, over 70 percent of drug abuses are 
     employed and over 73 percent of heavy alcohol users are 
     working. Clearly, the biggest burden it borne by employers 
     who hire these individuals in term of lost productivity, 
     increased accidents and workers' compensation costs, and 
     higher absenteeism and tardiness. The problem of substance 
     abuse is compounded by the low unemployment rate where small 
     employers are faced with hiring employees who test positive 
     or not filling a position. Accordingly, the demand for drug-
     free workplace programs is increasing in a time where 
     programs such as ours are facing severe funding cuts. It is 
     thus imperative that the funding not cease for this 
     invaluable program.
       If I can be of assistance to you, please contact me. Thank 
     you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Beth Winters.
                                  ____

                                  Golden Eagle Distributors, Inc.,


                                            Executive Offices,

                                        Tucson, AZ, June 28, 1999.
       Your help would be appreciated in support of the $6 million 
     appropriation for the S.B.A. drug-free workplace program,
       These funds are certainly needed for small business to keep 
     drugs out of the workplace.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jack Braddock,
     Vice President.
                                  ____



                                                AAA Landscape,

                                                    June 29, 1999.
     Re: DFW Funding
       As an office manager of a mid-sized landscape company in 
     Tucson, Arizona, I have a request to make of you.
       Please support funding the remaining $6 million of 
     appropriated funds for the Small Business Administration in 
     support of the very important drug-free workplace 
     demonstration program.
       The need and demand for drug-free workplace resources is 
     growing, while the available resource are shrinking. With 
     unemployment at an almost unheard of low, the need for able-
     bodied, able-minded workers is desperate. Drug usage, both 
     within the current work force and among the unemployed, is an 
     enormous problem. This demonstration program, even in its 
     infancy, is beginning to make a real difference. We must give 
     it a fair chance.
       Please advise Senator Kerry that to kill the second-year 
     funding of $6 million for the Drug-Free Workplace 
     demonstration program would be a huge injustice to small 
     business owners all over America.
       Thank you for your time and attention.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeane Fearson,
     Office Manager.
                                  ____



                            Pima County, Sheriff's Department,

                                        Tuscon, AZ, June 28, 1999.
       With the extra trillion-dollar budget surplus announced 
     today in Washington, it seems to me that $6 million to 
     conclude a vital drug-free workplace demonstration project is 
     a mere drop in the federal bucket.
       I serve as chairman of Arizonans For A Drug-Free Workplace, 
     and active member of a national drug-free workplace 
     initiative that represents a coalition of more than 3,000 
     businesses, the majority of which are small businesses, We 
     seek your help in obtaining funding for the remaining $6 
     million of appropriated monies for the Small Business 
     Administration in support of the demonstration project.
       As you are aware, the need, and demand for drug-free 
     workplace resources have been increasing, while available 
     resources have been skrinking--an obvious contradiction in 
     view of today's fiscal revelation. Doesn't Congress 
     understand that it is business--and small business, in 
     particular--that contributes mightily to the strength of this 
     country's economy.
       We in the drug-free workplace initiative believe it is time 
     for these small businesses to receive the help needed to stop 
     the high costs brought about my substance abuse in the 
     workplace. You have the opportunity to make a drug-free 
     workplace a reality for many small businesses across our 
     land.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Asa Bushnell,
     Community Relations Manager.
                                  ____



                                        Concrete Designs Inc.,

                                        Tucson, AZ, June 29, 1999.
       As a small business manager, I want to express my concern 
     regarding Senator Kerry's move to kill the Drug-Free 
     Workplace funding. The drug issue in the work force is a 
     growing problem in the United States and businesses have 
     little support to help deal with this. Last week alone, I 
     sent five applicants to take a pre-employment drug screen and 
     only one went and tested negative for drugs. This ratio has 
     been typical over the past year. In addition, we continue to 
     lose employees through our random testing program.
       You are in the position to help change this trend. Please 
     support the funding of the appropriated funds.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Deby Wiest,
     President, General Manager.
                                  ____

                                                National Drug-Free


                                           Workplace Alliance,

                                 Milwaukee, WI, June 29, 1999.

       It has recently come to my attention that there may be a 
     move afoot to abolish to second year funding for the Drug-
     Free Workplace Act of 1999. This is of paramount concern as 
     these dollars are aimed at developing drug-free workplace 
     demonstration programs for small business nationwide.
       Drug-free workplace programs began, historically, with the 
     country's largest corporations and over the years, have 
     inadvertently, squeezed substance abusers toward smaller 
     business. The tragedy is that most small businesses do not 
     have the resources to develop programs to protect their 
     employees as well as the quality of their products and 
     services, to say nothing of the end users.
       It is well documented that drug-free workplace programs are 
     extremely effective at reducing absenteeism, workplace 
     injuries and theft, to name just a few. Furthermore, it is 
     also well documented that these programs are terrific case 
     finding entities in that they provide incentive as well as 
     vehicles for employees to access Employee Assistance Programs 
     or treatment options to assist in their recovery process. Of 
     course the recovery, or lack of it, has a tremendous impact 
     on families and coworkers as well as the above cited issues 
     as well.
       Our Alliance represents drug-free workplace initiatives in 
     nearly thirty states and we see the benefits of these 
     programs, with thousands of employers, on a daily basis. We 
     believe that the wisdom of these programs was recognized when 
     this legislation was initially passed and would ask for your 
     assistance in protecting this valuable pilot that can have a 
     far reaching impact not only at a business level but at a 
     social level as well.
       If I or the other Alliance members may be a resource to 
     you, please do not hesitate to call.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jerome L. Houfek,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                Mountain Power

                                        Tucson, AZ, June 30, 1999.
       Mountain Power Electrical Contractor, Inc. is a small 
     business dedicated to providing a safe working environment 
     for our employees, clientele, and the public. Part of our 
     safety culture includes striving to maintain a drug free 
     workplace.
       The U.S. war against drugs is loosing ground. According to 
     the reports issued by the Community Epidemiology Work Group

[[Page S9036]]

     (CEWG), the percentage of drug users is on the rise in 
     various categories, including heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and 
     methamphetamines.
       It is imperative that our political leaders, businesses, 
     and the public at large support education and prevention in 
     order to win the war against drugs. Dealing with the 
     aftermath of our nation's drug problem in America is proving 
     senseless and useless.
       Therefore, our firm is requesting your assistance for the 
     drug-free workplace demonstration project. We are asking that 
     you support funding the remaining $6 million of appropriated 
     funds for the SBA in support of this very important drug-free 
     workplace demonstration program. This program directly 
     provides and assists small businesses with education, 
     literature, and resources to maintain a drug free workplace 
     and keep abreast of local ordinances, as well as legislative 
     issues.
       Thank you for your support and assistance in making the 
     drug-free workplace a reality for small businesses in this 
     country.
           Sincerely,
                                              Debra Graham-Garcia,
     Business Development Specialist.
                                  ____



                                     Tucson Airport Authority,

                                        Tucson, AZ, June 29, 1999.
       As a Board member of Arizonans For A Drug-Free Workplace, 
     and the Director of Personnel for the Tucson Airport 
     Authority I am requesting that you support the second year 
     funding of $6 million for the Drug-Free Workplace 
     demonstration program authorized under last year's Drug-Free 
     Workplace Act of 1998.
       The current funding level for year-one at $3 million for 
     the demonstration will only fund thirty or less programs, 
     hardly enough time or money to conduct a proper demonstration 
     period. The $6 million second-year funding will provide a 
     much better opportunity for all of the drug-programs to prove 
     that a drug free workplace can truly make a difference.
       Without the appropriated funding drug-free workplace 
     programs will have to close their doors or modify their 
     existence to survive. This is an alarming trend that is 
     already occurring in our country. The need for drug-free 
     workplace funds is increasing while the available resources 
     are decreasing. Substance abuse in the workplace as well as 
     in the home comes at a very high cost to our society.
       Thank you in advance for your sensitive consideration to 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rachel Ingegneri,
     Director of Personnel.
                                  ____



                                     Tucson Airport Authority,

                                        Tucson, AZ, June 29, 1999.
       As a Board member of Arizonans For a Drug-Free Workplace, 
     and the Director of personnel for the Tucson Airport 
     Authority I am requesting that you support the second year 
     funding of $6 million for the Drug-Free Workplace 
     demonstration program authorized under last year's Drug-Free 
     Workplace Act of 1998.
       The current funding level for year-one at $3 million for 
     the demonstration will only fund thirty or less programs, 
     hardly enough time or money to conduct a proper demonstration 
     period. The $6 million second-year funding will provide a 
     much better opportunity for all of the drug-free programs to 
     prove that a drug-free workplace can truly make a difference.
       Without the appropriated funding drug-free workplace 
     programs will have to close their doors or modify their 
     existence to survive. This is an alarming trend that is 
     already occurring in our country. The need for drug-free 
     workplace funds is increasing while the available resources 
     are decreasing. Substance Abuse in the workplace as well as 
     in the home comes at a very high cost to our society.
       Thank you in advance for your sensitive consideration to 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rachel Ingegneri,
                                            Director of Personnel.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am proud that S. 1217, the Commerce, 
Justice, and State Appropriations Bill contains an amendment by Senator 
Coverdell and me, securing $1.8 million for drug-free workplace 
programs. It has been a pleasure to have worked with Senator Coverdell 
in obtaining funding for this critical program.
  Our amendment is a victory for business and the fight against drugs.
  Last year Senator Coverdell and I authored the Drug-Free Workplace 
Act, which became law. It provided grants to organizations in order to 
assist small businesses in starting drug-free workplace programs. The 
Act was designed to encourage partnerships between small businesses and 
organizations that have experience in tackling the problem of drugs in 
the workplace. Many small business are reluctant to implement drug 
testing or employee-assistance programs, because they lack expertise in 
crafting such programs.
  As we all know, sustaining a competent, able work force hinges on our 
ability to keep drugs out of the workplace. Funding was needed to 
continue this instrumental program. Securing $1.8 million for FY 2000 
is a victory, considering the Administration chose to not fund this 
effort at all.
  Statistics confirm that drug-free workplaces are more productive and 
efficient than those where some employees abuse drugs. For instance, 47 
percent of workplace accidents are drug-related. Moreover, U.S. 
businesses lose $176 billion annually to substance abuse for costs due 
to accidents, absenteeism, and increased health care costs. Drug and 
alcohol abusers utilize 300 percent more medical benefits than non-
abusers.
  This amendment will enable small businesses to combat an evil that 
plagues their work forces, drug abuse.


                           amendment no. 1311

  (Purpose: To amend provisions relating to the implementation of the 
 June 3, 1999 Agreement of the United States and Canada on the Treaty 
    Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
 Government of Canada Concerning Pacific Salmon and for other purposes)

       S. 1217 is amended as follows:
       At page 59, line 12 strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$18,000,000''.
       At page 59, line 14 strike ``Alaska'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$20,000,000 is made available as a direct payment 
     to the State of Alaska''.
       At page 59, lines 22 and 23 strike the comma and the phrase 
     ``subject to express authorization''.
       At page 60, lines 2 and 3 strike the comma and the phrase 
     ``subject to express authorization''.
       At page 76, line 11 strike the comma and the phrase 
     ``subject to express authorization''.
       At the appropriate place in ``TITLE VI--GENERAL 
     PROVISIONS'' insert the following new section:
       ``Sec. __. (a) To implement the June 3, 1999 Agreement of 
     the United States and Canada on the Treaty Between the 
     Government of the United States of America and the Government 
     of Canada Concerning Pacific Salmon (the ``1999 Agreement'') 
     $140,000,000 is authorized only for use and expenditure as 
     described in subsection (b).
       (b)(1) $75,000,000 for grants to provide the initial 
     capital for a Northern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers 
     Restoration and Enhancement Fund to be held by the Pacific 
     Salmon Commission and administered jointly by the Pacific 
     Salmon Commission Commissioner for the State of Alaska with 
     Canada according to a trust agreement to be entered into by 
     the United States and Canada for the purposes of research, 
     habitat restoration, and fish enhancement to promote 
     abundance-based, conservation-oriented fishing regimes.
       (2) $65,000,000 for grants to provide the initial capital 
     for a Southern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers Restoration 
     and Enhancement Fund to be held by the Pacific Salmon 
     Commission and administered jointly with Canada by the 
     Pacific Salmon Commission Commissioners for the States of 
     Washington, Oregon, and California according to a trust 
     agreement to be entered into by the United States and Canada 
     for the purposes of research, habitat restoration, and fish 
     enhancement to promote abundance-based, conservation-oriented 
     fishing regimes.
       (3)(i) Amounts provided by grants under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) may be held in interest-bearing accounts prior to the 
     disbursement of such funds for program purposes, and any 
     interest earned may be retained for program purposes without 
     further appropriation by Congress.
       (ii) the Northern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers 
     Restoration and Enhancement Fund and Southern Boundary and 
     Transboundary Rivers Restoration and Enhancement Fund are 
     subject to the laws governing federal appropriations and 
     funds and to unrescinded circulars of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, including the audit requirements of 
     Office of Management and Budget Circular Nos. A-110, A-122 
     and A-133; and
       (iii) Recipients of funds from the Northern Boundary and 
     Transboundary Rivers Restoration and Enhancement Fund and 
     Southern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers Restoration and 
     Enhancement Fund, which for the purposes of this subparagraph 
     shall include interest earned pursuant to subparagraph (i), 
     shall keep separate accounts and such records as may be 
     reasonably necessary to disclose the use of the funds as well 
     as facilitate effective audits.
       (c) The President shall submit a request for funds to 
     implement this section as part of his official budget request 
     for the Fiscal Year 2001.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1312

  (Purpose: To amend certain provisions for appropriations for costs 
associated with the implementation of the American Fisheries Act vessel 
                       documentation activities)

       S. 1217 is amended as follows:
       At the appropriate place in ``Title VI--GENERAL 
     PROVISIONS'' insert the following new section:
       ``Sec. __. Funds made available under Public Law 105-277 
     for costs associated with implementation of the American 
     Fisheries Act of 1998 (Division C, title II, of Public Law 
     105-277) for vessel documentation activities shall remain 
     available until expended.''

[[Page S9037]]

     
                                  ____
                           amendment no. 1313

(Purpose: To provide funding for the Narragansett Bay cooperative study 
conducted by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management in 
                cooperation with the Federal Government)

       On page 57, line 17, before the colon, insert the 
     following: ``, of which $112,520,000 shall be used for 
     resource information activities of the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service and $806,000 shall be used for the 
     Narragansett Bay cooperative study conducted by the Rhode 
     Island Department of Environmental Management in cooperation 
     with the Federal Government''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1314

 (Purpose: To provide funding for research in addictive disorders and 
                  their connection to youth violence)

       On page 25, line 5, before ``and'' insert ``of which 
     $2,000,000 shall be made available to the Department of 
     Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the University of 
     Mississippi School of Medicine for research in addictive 
     disorders and their connection to youth violence''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1315

(Purpose: To make an amendment with respect to the Crime Identification 
                        Technology Act of 1998)

       ``On page 27, lines 14 and 15, strike `'for the Crime 
     Identification Technology Initiative'' and insert ``to carry 
     out section 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 
     1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601), including for grants for law 
     enforcement equipment for discretionary grants to States, 
     Local units of Government, and Indian Tribes''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1316

 (Purpose: To credit reimbursements owed by the United Nations to the 
 United States to reduce United States arrearage to the United Nations)

       On page 81, line 25, insert the following after ``reforms'' 
     ``: Provided further, That any additional amount provided, 
     not to exceed $107 million, which is owed by the United 
     Nations to the United States as a reimbursement, including 
     any reimbursement under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or 
     the United Nations Participation act of 1945, that was owned 
     to the United States before the date of enactment of this Act 
     shall be applied or used, without fiscal year limitation, to 
     reduce any amount owned by the United States to the United 
     Nations, except that any such reduction pursuant to the 
     authority in this paragraph shall not be made unless 
     expressly authorized by the enactment of a separate Act that 
     makes payment of arrearages contingent upon United Nations 
     reform''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1317

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act for the United Nations may be used by 
     the United Nations for the promulgation or enforcement of any 
     treaty, resolution, or regulation authorizing the United 
     Nations, or any of its specialized agencies or affiliated 
     organizations, to tax any aspect of the Internet.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1318

       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       ``Sec. __. Section 286(q)(1)(A) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act of 1953 (8 U.S.C. 1356(q)(1)(A)), as amended, 
     is further amended--
       (a) by deleting clause (ii);
       (2) by renumbering clause (iii) as (ii); and
       (3) by striking ``, until September 30, 2000,'' in clause 
     (iv) and renumbering that clause as (iii)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1319

      (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Iran)

       On page 111, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 620. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of 
     terrorism by the Secretary of State and continues to be among 
     the most active supporters of terrorism in the world.
       (2) According to the State Department's annual report 
     entitled ``Patterns of Global Terrorism'', Iran supports 
     Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, 
     terrorist organizations which oppose the Middle East peace 
     process, continue to work for the destruction of Israel, and 
     have killed United States citizens.
       (3) A United States district court ruled in March 1998 that 
     Iran should pay $247,000,000 to the family of Alisa Flatow, a 
     United States citizen killed in a bomb attack orchestrated by 
     the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza in April 1995.
       (4) The Government of Iran continues to maintain a 
     repressive political regime in which the civil liberties of 
     the people of Iran are denied.
       (5) The State Department Country Report on Human Rights 
     states that the human rights record of the Government of Iran 
     remains poor, including ``extra judicial killings and summary 
     executions; disappearances; widespread use of torture and 
     other degrading treatment; harsh prison conditions; arbitrary 
     arrest and detention; lack of due process; unfair trials; 
     infringement on citizen's privacy; and restrictions on 
     freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, 
     and movement''.
       (6) Religious minorities in Iran have been persecuted 
     solely because of their faith, and the Government of Iran has 
     detained 13 members of Iran's Jewish community without 
     charge.
       (7) Recent student-led protests in Iran were repressed by 
     force, with possibly five students losing their lives and 
     hundreds more being imprisoned.
       (8) The Government of Iran is pursuing an aggressive 
     ballistic missile program with foreign assistance and is 
     seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction which threaten 
     United States allies and interests.
       (9) Despite the continuation by the Government of Iran of 
     repressive activities in Iran and efforts to threaten United 
     States allies and interests in the Near East and South Asia, 
     the President waived provisions of the Iran and Libya 
     Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 
     note) intended to impede development of the energy sector in 
     Iran.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the President should condemn in the strongest possible 
     terms the failure of the Government of Iran to implement 
     genuine political reforms and protect the civil liberties of 
     the people of Iran, which failure was most recently 
     demonstrated in the violent repression of student-led 
     protests in Teheran and other cities by the Government of 
     Iran;
       (2) the President should support democratic opposition 
     groups in Iran more aggressively;
       (3) the detention of 13 members of the Iranian Jewish 
     community by the Government of Iran is a deplorable violation 
     of due process and a clear example of the policies of the 
     Government of Iran to persecute religious minorities; and
       (4) the decision of the President to waive provisions of 
     the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 intended to impede 
     development of the energy sector in Iran was regrettable and 
     should be reversed as long as Iran continues to threaten 
     United States interests and allies in the Near East and South 
     Asia through state sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to 
     acquire weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to 
     deliver such weapons.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1320

 (Purpose: To provide additional funding for law enforcement programs 
                         regarding hate crimes)

     SECTION 1. HATE CRIMES.

       (a) Declarations.--Congress declares that--
       (1) further efforts must be taken at all levels of 
     government to respond to the staggering brutality of hate 
     crimes that have riveted public attention and shocked the 
     Nation;
       (2) hate crimes are prompted by bias and are committed to 
     send a message of hate to targeted communities, usually 
     defined on the basis of immutable traits;
       (3) the prominent characteristic of a hate crime is that it 
     devastates not just the actual victim and the victim's family 
     and friends, but frequently savages the community sharing the 
     traits that caused the victim to be selected;
       (4) any efforts undertaken by the Federal Government to 
     combat hate crimes must respect the primacy that States and 
     local officials have traditionally been accorded in the 
     criminal prosecution of acts constituting hate crimes; and
       (5) an overly broad reaction by the Federal Government to 
     this serious problem might ultimately diminish the 
     accountability of State and local officials in responding to 
     hate crimes and transgress the constitutional limitations on 
     the powers vested in Congress under the Constitution.
       (b) Studies.--
       (1) Collection of data.--
       (A) Definition of hate crime.--In this paragraph, the term 
     ``hate crime'' means--
       (i) a crime described in subsection (b)(1) of the first 
     section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 
     note); and
       (ii) a crime that manifests evidence of prejudice based on 
     gender or age.
       (B) Collection from cross-section of states.--Not later 
     than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, in consultation 
     with the National Governors' Association, shall select 10 
     jurisdictions with laws classifying certain types of crimes 
     as hate crimes and 10 jurisdictions without such laws from 
     which to collect data described in subparagraph (C) over a 
     12-month period.
       (C) Data to be collected.--The data to be collected are--
       (i) the number of hate crimes that are reported and 
     investigated;
       (ii) the percentage of hate crimes that are prosecuted and 
     the percentage that result in conviction;
       (iii) the length of the sentences imposed for crimes 
     classified as hate crimes within a jurisdiction, compared 
     with the length of sentences imposed for similar crimes 
     committed in jurisdictions with no hate crime laws; and
       (iv) references to and descriptions of the laws under which 
     the offenders were punished.
       (D) Costs.--Participating jurisdictions shall be reimbursed 
     for the reasonable and necessary costs of compiling data 
     under this paragraph.

[[Page S9038]]

       (2) Study of trends.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the General Accounting Office shall complete a 
     study that analyzes the data collected under paragraph (1) 
     and under the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 to determine 
     the extent of hate crime activity throughout the country and 
     the success of State and local officials in combating that 
     activity.
       (B) Identification of trends.--In the study conducted under 
     subparagraph (A), the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the General Accounting Office shall identify any 
     trends in the commission of hate crimes specifically by--
       (i) geographic region;
       (ii) type of crime committed; and
       (iii) the number of hate crimes that are prosecuted and the 
     number for which convictions are obtained.
       (c) Model Statute.--
       (1) In general.--To encourage the identification and 
     prosecution of hate crimes throughout the country, the 
     Attorney General shall, through the National Conference of 
     Commissioners on Uniform State Laws of the American Law 
     Institute or another appropriate forum, and in consultation 
     with the States, develop a model statute to carry out the 
     goals described in subsection (a) and criminalize acts 
     classified as hate crimes.
       (2) Requirements.--In developing the model statute, the 
     Attorney General shall--
       (A) include in the model statute crimes that manifest 
     evidence of prejudice; and
       (B) prepare an analysis of all reasons why any crime 
     motivated by prejudice based on any traits of a victim should 
     or should not be included.
       (d) Support for Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions by 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Officials.--
       (1) Assistance other than financial assistance.--
       (A) In general.--At the request of a law enforcement 
     official of a State or a political subdivision of a State, 
     the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall provide technical, 
     forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in 
     the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
       (i) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 
     16 of title 18, United States Code);
       (ii) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State; and
       (iii) is motivated by prejudice based on the victim's race, 
     ethnicity, or religion or is a violation of the State's hate 
     crime law.
       (B) Priority.--In providing assistance under subparagraph 
     (A), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes 
     committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than 
     1 State.
       (2) Grants.--
       (A) In general.--There is established a grant program 
     within the Department of Justice to assist State and local 
     officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate 
     crimes.
       (B) Eligibility.--A State or political subdivision of a 
     State applying for assistance under this paragraph shall--
       (i) describe the purposes for which the grant is needed; 
     and
       (ii) certify that the State or political subdivision lacks 
     the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate 
     crime.
       (C) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this 
     paragraph shall be approved or disapproved by the Attorney 
     General not later than 24 hours after the application is 
     submitted.
       (D) Grant amount.--A grant under this paragraph shall not 
     exceed $100,000 for any single case.
       (E) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the National Governors' 
     Association, shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     applications made for grants under this paragraph, the award 
     of such grants, and the effectiveness of the grant funds 
     awarded.
       (F) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
       (e) Interstate Travel To Commit Hate Crime.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 249. Interstate travel to commit hate crime

       ``(a) In General.--A person, whether or not acting under 
     color of law, who--
       ``(1) travels across a State line or enters or leaves 
     Indian country in order, by force or threat of force, to 
     willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or by force 
     or threat of force to attempt to injure, intimidate, or 
     interfere with, any person because of the person's race, 
     color, religion, or national origin; and
       ``(2) by force or threat of force, willfully injures, 
     intimidates, or interferes with, or by force or threat of 
     force attempts to willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere 
     with any person because of the person's race, color, 
     religion, or national origin,
     shall be subject to a penalty under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Penalties.--A person described in subsection (a) who 
     is subject to a penalty under this subsection--
       ``(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 1 year, or both;
       ``(2) if bodily injury results or if the violation includes 
     the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous 
     weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; or
       ``(3) if death results or if the violation includes 
     kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse 
     or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill--
       ``(A) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any 
     term of years or for life, or both; or
       ``(B) may be sentenced to death.''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--The analysis for chapter 13 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``249. Interstate travel to commit hate crime.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1321

                (Purpose: To improve fishery management)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL.

       Section 302(a)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``17'' and inserting ``18''; and
       (2) by striking ``11'' and inserting ``12''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1322

   (Purpose: To authorize a place for holding court in New York, to 
authorize the consolidation of clerks offices in West Virginia, and to 
  direct the provision of space for a senior judge's chambers in Utah)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:

     SEC.   . PLACE OF HOLDING COURT AT CENTRAL ISLIP, NEW YORK.

       The second paragraph of Section 112(c) of title 28, United 
     States Code is amended to read--
       ``Court for the Eastern District shall be held at Brooklyn, 
     Hauppauge, Hempstead (including the village of Uniondale), 
     and Central Islip.''

     SEC.   . WEST VIRGINIA CLERK CONSOLIDATION APPROVAL.

       Pursuant to the requirements of Section 156(d) of title 28, 
     United States Code, Congress hereby approves the 
     consolidation of the office of the bankruptcy clerk with the 
     office of the district clerk of court in the Southern 
     District of West Virginia.

     SEC.   . SENIOR JUDGE'S CHAMBERS IN PROVO, UTAH.

       The Internal Revenue Service is directed to vacate 
     sufficient space in the Federal Building in Provo, Utah as 
     soon as practicable to provide space for a senior judge's 
     chambers in that building. The General Services 
     Administration is directed to provide interim space for a 
     senior judge's chambers in Provo, Utah and to complete a 
     permanent senior judge's chambers in the Federal Building 
     located in that city as soon as practicable.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1323

 (Purpose: To increase funding for SBA Microloan Technical Assistance)

       In the Salaries and Expense Account of the Small Business 
     Administration, insert at the end of the paragraph:
       ``Provided further, That $23,200,000 shall be available to 
     fund grants for Microloan Technical Assistance as authorized 
     by section 7(m) of the Small Business Act.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1324

(Purpose: To enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other 
                               purposes.)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                    TITLE __--HATE CRIMES PREVENTION

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. __02. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or 
     perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual 
     orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a 
     serious national problem;
       (2) such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of 
     communities and is deeply divisive;
       (3) existing Federal law is inadequate to address this 
     problem;
       (4) such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways, 
     including--
       (A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups 
     and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape 
     the incidence or risk of such violence; and
       (B) by preventing members of targeted groups from 
     purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining 
     employment or participating in other commercial activity;
       (5) perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence;
       (6) instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to 
     facilitate the commission of such violence;
       (7) such violence is committed using articles that have 
     traveled in interstate commerce;
       (8) violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery 
     can constitute badges and incidents of slavery;
       (9) although many State and local authorities are now and 
     will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the 
     overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States,

[[Page S9039]]

     including violent crimes motivated by bias, Federal 
     jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias is 
     necessary to supplement State and local jurisdiction and 
     ensure that justice is achieved in each case;
       (10) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes 
     motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local 
     authorities to work together as partners in the investigation 
     and prosecution of such crimes;
       (11) the problem of hate crime is sufficiently serious, 
     widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal 
     assistance to States and local jurisdictions; and
       (12) freedom of speech and association are fundamental 
     values protected by the first amendment to the Constitution 
     of the United States, and it is the purpose of this title to 
     criminalize acts of violence, and threats of violence, 
     carried out because of the actual or perceived race, color, 
     religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or 
     disability of the victim, not to criminalize beliefs in the 
     abstract.

     SEC. __03. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

       In this title, the term ``hate crime'' has the same meaning 
     as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

     SEC. __04. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, 
     willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the 
     use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to 
     cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any 
     person--
       ``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if--
       ``(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph 
     include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual 
     abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill.
       ``(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, 
     in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully 
     causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of 
     fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause 
     bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
     perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability 
     of any person--
       ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
       ``(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph 
     include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual 
     abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances 
     described in this subparagraph are that--
       ``(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the 
     victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a 
     facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce; or
       ``(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign 
     commerce.
       ``(3) No prosecution of any offense described in this 
     subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except 
     upon the certification in writing of the Attorney General, 
     the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, 
     or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the 
     Attorney General that--
       ``(A) he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the 
     actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, 
     sexual orientation, gender, or disability of any person was a 
     motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the 
     defendant; and
       ``(B) that he or his designee or she or her designee has 
     consulted with State or local law enforcement officials 
     regarding the prosecution and determined that--
       ``(i) the State does not have jurisdiction or refuses to 
     assume jurisdiction;
       ``(ii) the State has requested that the Federal Government 
     assume jurisdiction; or
       ``(iii) actions by State and local law enforcement 
     officials have or are likely to leave demonstratively 
     unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-
     motivated violence.''.

     SEC. __05. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

       (a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant 
     to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States 
     Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the 
     issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes 
     and shall, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to 
     the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor 
     during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who 
     recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.
       (b) Consistency With Other Guidelines.--In carrying out 
     this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other 
     Federal sentencing guidelines; and
       (2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the 
     same offense.

     SEC. __06. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority to Make Grants.--The Office of Justice 
     Programs of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may 
     prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat 
     hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to 
     train local law enforcement officers in investigating, 
     prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. __07. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST 
                   STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the 
     Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 
     2002 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of 
     personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of 
     section 245 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by 
     this title).

     SEC. __08. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this title, an amendment made by this 
     title, or the application of such provision or amendment to 
     any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, 
     the remainder of this title, the amendments made by this 
     title, and the application of the provisions of such to any 
     person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am committed in my view that the Senate 
must lead and speak against hate crimes.
  Many of America's greatest strides in civil rights progress took 
place during recent generations--from Congress' protection of Americans 
from employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, 
religion and national origin with the passage of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, to the protection of the disabled with the passage of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, and many other important 
pieces of legislation.
  However, while America's elected officials have striven mightily 
through the passage of such measures to stop discrimination in the 
workplace, or to the hands of government actors, what remains 
tragically unaddressed in large part is discrimination against peoples' 
own security--that most fundamental right to be free from physical 
harm.
  Despite our best efforts, discrimination continues to persist in many 
forms in this country, but most sadly in the rudimentary and malicious 
form of violence against individuals because of their identities.
  As much as we condemn all crime, hate crime can be more sinister than 
non-hate crime. A crime committed not just to harm an individual, but 
out of the motive of sending a message of hatred to an entire 
community--oftentimes a community defined on the basis of immutable 
traits--is appropriately punished more harshly, or in a different 
manner, than other crimes. Moreover, hate crimes are more likely to 
provoke retaliatory crimes; they inflict deep, lasting and distinct 
injuries--some of which never heal--on victims and their family 
members; they incite community unrest; and, ultimately, they are 
downright un-American.
  I am resolute in my view that the federal government can play a 
valuable role in responding to hate crime. One example here is my 
sponsorship of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, another is the 
passage in 1996 of the Church Arson Protection Act.
  Given the seriousness of our objective to eradicate hate crime, it is 
imperative that any measure abide by the constitutional limitations 
imposed on Congress, and be cognizant of the limitations on Congress' 
enumerated powers that are routinely enforced by the courts. This is 
more true today than it would have been even a mere decade ago, given 
the significant revival by the U.S. Supreme Court of the federalism 
doctrine in a string of decisions beginning in 1992.
  I have therefore proposed a response to hate crimes that is not only 
as effective as possible, but that carefully navigates the rocky shoals 
of these

[[Page S9040]]

court decisions. To that end, I have prepared a measure that I believe 
will be not only an effective one, but one that would avoid altogether 
the constitutional risks that attach to other possible federal 
responses that have been raised.
  There are four principal components to my approach:
  First, it creates a meaningful partnership between the federal 
government and the states in combating hate crime, by establishing 
within the Justice Department a fund to assist state and local 
authorities in investigating and prosecuting hate crime. Much of the 
cited justification given by those who advocate broad federal 
jurisdiction over hate crimes is a lack of adequate resources at the 
state and local level.
  Accordingly, before we take the step of making every criminal offense 
motivated by a hatred of someone's immutable traits a federal offense, 
it is imperative that we equip states and localities with the resources 
necessary so that they can undertake these criminal investigations and 
prosecutions on their own.
  Second, my approach undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the raw 
data that has been collected pursuant to the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics 
Act, including a comparison of the records of different jurisdictions--
some with hate crime laws, others without--to determine whether there 
is, in fact, a problem in certain states' prosecution of those criminal 
acts constituting hate crimes.
  Third, my approach directs an appropriate, neutral forum to develop a 
model hate crimes statute that would enable states to evaluate their 
own laws, and adopt--in whole or in part from the model statute--hate 
crime legislation at the state level.
  One of the arguments cited for a federalization of enforcement is the 
varying scope and punitive force of state laws. Yet there are many 
areas of grave national concern--such as drank driving, by way of 
example--that are appropriately left to the states for criminal 
enforcement and punishment.
  Before we make all hate crimes federal offenses, I believe we should 
pursue avenues that advance consistency among the states through the 
voluntary efforts of their legislatures. Perhaps, upon completion of 
this model hate crime law, Congress will review its recommendation and 
consider additional ways to promote uniformity among the states.
  Fourth, my proposal makes a long-overdue modification of our existing 
federal hate crime law (passed in 1969) to allow for the prosecution by 
federal authorities of those hate crimes that are classically within 
federal jurisdiction--that is, hate crimes in which state lines have 
been crossed.
  I believe that passage of this comprehensive measure will prove a 
strong antidote to the scourge of hate crimes.
  It is no answer for the Senate to sit by silently while these crimes 
are being committed. The ugly, bigoted, and violent underside of some 
in our country that is reflected by the commission of hate crimes must 
be combated at all levels of government.
  For some, federal leadership necessitates federal control. I do not 
subscribe to this view, especially when it comes to this problem. It 
has been proposed by some that to combat hate crime Congress should 
enact a new tier of far-reaching federal criminal legislation. That 
approach strays from the foundations of our constitutional structure--
namely, the first principles of federalism that for more than two 
centuries have vested states with primary responsibility for 
prosecuting crimes committed within their boundaries.
  As important as this issue is, there is little evidence such a step 
is warranted, or that it will do any more than what I have proposed. In 
fact, one could argue that national enforcement of hate crime could 
decrease if states are told the federal government has assumed primary 
responsibility over hate crime enforcement.
  Accordingly, we must lead--but lead responsibly--recognizing that we 
live in a country of governments of shared and divided 
responsibilities.
  I encourage this body to question the dogma that federal leadership 
must include federal control, and I encourage this body to act anew by 
supporting a proposal that is far-reaching in its efforts to stem hate 
crime, and that is at the same time respectful of the primacy states 
have traditionally enjoyed in prosecuting crimes committed within their 
boundaries.
  My proposal should unite all of us on the one point about which we 
should most fervently agree--that the Senate must speak firmly and 
meaningfully in denouncing as wrong in all respects those actions we 
have increasingly come to know as hate crimes. Our continued progress 
in fighting to protect Americans' civil rights demands no less.
  I take note that there are now two different hate crime measures that 
have been accepted by the Senate. It is my hope that the conference 
will consider the Hatch amendment's approach to be the wiser and the 
more responsible, and accordingly adopt it. Alternatively, however, it 
is my hope that some accord might be reached between the two versions 
that respects the constitutional and federalism boundaries I have 
discussed, and to the extent it is not, I may choose to pursue adoption 
of my measure through the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee I have spoken out against hate crimes of many kinds 
and in many lands. For that reason I cannot be silent at home. I 
believe that government's first duty is to defend its citizens. To 
defend them against the harms that come out of hate. To defend them 
regardless of their status, be they female, disabled or gay. The Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act is now a symbol that can become substance. By 
changing this law we can change hearts and minds as well.
  The law is a teacher and we should teach our fellow citizens that all 
crime is hateful. But we can also teach that some crime is so odious 
that an extra measure of prosecution is demanded by us, so that it will 
never again be repeated among us.
  Never again should we in the federal government withhold our help or 
stand idly by when a Matthew Shepard is tied to a fence, beaten and 
left to die because he is gay. Never again should we defer to others 
when one James Byrd, Jr. is dragged to his death because he is black. 
No, in these cases and in too many more, the Federal Government must 
have the power to persuade, to pursue and to prosecute when hate is the 
motive of violence against American victims, no matter their state, no 
matter their minority or vulnerability.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
to protect Americans from hate crimes. It is unfortunate that the 
amendment's chief sponsor, Senator Ted Kennedy, couldn't be here to 
take part in this debate. Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to 
enact this crucial piece of legislation. He has my heartfelt 
appreciation for his work on this and my sympathy for the loss of his 
nephew. I can't possibly match his passion and eloquence on this issue, 
but I am here today to discuss and support his amendment on hate crimes 
prevention.
  Hate crime is real. Despite great gains in equality and civil rights 
over the later part of this century, hate crimes are still being 
committed. Those who commit these heinous crimes must be punished.
  We all remember Matthew Shepard. He was a young man who just last 
fall was viciously struck down in the prime of his life. Tragically, he 
is now a reminder of what happens when he do not stand up to hate and 
bigotry. We must treat hate crimes as the deadly threat they are and do 
more to prevent them. These are not simply assaults. They are violent 
crimes motivated by hate and bigotry.
  Passing this amendment gives us more tools to fight hate. I am 
pleased to join with many of my colleagues as a co-sponsor of this 
important legislation. The amendment would expand the definition of a 
hate crime and improve prosecution of those who act out their hate with 
violence. If someone harms another because of the victim's race, 
gender, color, religion, disability or sexual orientation, they will be 
punished. No longer will the activity of the victim matter, but the 
actions and motivations of the perpetrator will be the focus. It is 
important to note that the prosecutor would still have to convince a 
jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal act was motivated by 
prejudice.
  No one can beat a person to death and leave them to die without being

[[Page S9041]]

motivated by a deep sense of hate. In the case of Matthew Shepard, it 
was no simply robbery. The motive was hate.
  I know some of my colleagues argue that the states are doing an 
adequate job of handling hate crimes on their own. I commend them for 
their efforts, but I believe the federal government has a further role 
in this as well. We already prosecute at the federal level many crimes 
that are motivated by prejudice. We need to strengthen these federal 
hate crimes laws and increase the role of the federal government in 
ending this violence. It wasn't that many years ago that we stood up 
for equality and justice by forcing the states and private citizens to 
end segregation and discrimination. Now we must do the same for hate 
crimes against any of our citizens.
  I ask that my statement appear in the Record immediately following 
the text of the hate crimes amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in 
expressing my strong support for the Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment, 
legislation of which I am a cosponsor.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment is urgently needed to compensate 
for two limitations in the current law. First, the current federal hate 
crimes law covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, 
color, religion or national origin. As a result, federal authorities 
cannot prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes against others 
because of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability.
  In addition, current law limits federal hate crime prosecutions to 
instances in which the victims was targeted because he or she was 
exercising one of six narrowly defined federally-protected activities 
(such as serving on a jury, attending a public school, eating at a 
restaurant or lodging at a hotel). As a result, the law does not reach 
many cases where individuals kill or injure others because of racial or 
religious hatred.
  The Hate Crimes Amendment would remedy the glaring gaps and 
inadequacy of the current law by broadening the federal jurisdiction to 
cover all violent crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred, 
regardless of whether the victim was exercising a federally protected 
right. It would also include sexual orientation, gender and disability 
to the list of protected categories within current federal hate crime 
law, provided there is a sufficient connection with interstate 
commerce.
  At the same time, federal involvement would only come into play if 
the Attorney General certifies that a federal prosecution is necessary 
to secure substantial justice. In recent years, the existing federal 
hate crimes law has been used only in carefully selected cases where 
the state criminal justice system did not achieve a just result.
  What does this mean? It means that crimes based on race, color, 
religion or national origin would be covered under the federal hate 
crimes law whenever the defendant causes bodily injury, or through the 
use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive, attempts to case injury.
  Crimes based on sexual orientation, gender or disability would be 
limited to the same types of violent crimes, but only if the crime has 
a sufficient connection with interstate commerce.
  In all cases, the prosecution would have to show that the crime was 
motivated in part by the actual or perceived sexual orientation, 
gender, or disability of the victim--and this would be a matter for the 
jury to determine.
  As would be the case for every element of a criminal offense, federal 
prosecutors would have to prove motivation beyond a reasonable doubt. 
In all cases, these prosecutions would present evidence that a 
motivating factor in the crime was bias against a particular group.
  Hate crimes in these cases would carry a heavy penalty. Persons who 
cause bodily injury to another, or, through the use of fire, firearms, 
or explosives, attempts to cause bodily injury in the furtherance of a 
hate crime would face imprisonment up to 10 years. If the hate crime 
results in death or the offense included kidnapping, aggravated sexual 
abuse or an attempt to kill, the convicted offender could face life 
imprisonment.
  Mr. President, for many years I have been deeply concerned about hate 
crimes and the immeasurable impact they have on victims, their families 
and our communities. In 1993, I sponsored the Hate Crimes Sentencing 
Enhancement Act, which was signed into law in 1994 as a part of the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Act 
increased the penalties for hate crimes directed at individuals because 
of their perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
disability or sexual orientation.
  Today, I believe the Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment, builds on this 
effort by modifying the current law to allow the federal government to 
provide the vital assistance to states in investigating of crimes of 
this magnitude.
  This legislation is long overdue, Mr. President. The brutal murders 
last year of an African American, James Byrd, in Texas; a gay man, 
Matthew Shepard, in Wyoming; and the murderous rampage in Littleton, 
Colorado earlier this year vividly portray why this legislation is so 
urgently needed.
  Just recently, our nation awakened to the news of drive-by shooting 
attacks on Jews, and African-American, and Asian-Americans in Chicago, 
Illinois. These shootings were the despicable acts of virulent hatred. 
Undoubtedly these crimes have affected so many lives beyond its 
immediate victims.
  Two weeks before the shootings, three synagogues were torched in 
Sacramento, California, sending shock waves throughout the Jewish 
community in America.
  Sadly, hate crimes are becoming too commonplace in America. According 
to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 1997, the last year for which we 
have statistics, 8,049 hate crime incidents were reported in the United 
States. That is almost one such crime per hour. Within these incidents, 
there were 10,255 victims of these crimes.
  Of that total, 4,710 or 58.5% of the crime were committed on account 
of the victim's race. Of these reported crimes, there were almost 1,300 
victims of anti-black crimes; 649 victims of anti-Hispanic crimes; and 
466 victims of anti-Asian crimes.
  In that same year, 1,385 or roughly 17% of the victims were targeted 
because of their religious affiliation. The number of anti-Jewish 
incidents is second only to those against blacks and far exceeds 
offenses against all other religious groups combined. Moreover, while 
by most accounts anti-Semitism in America has declined dramatically 
over the years, the level of violence is escalating.
  The FBI reports that crimes against gays, lesbians and bisexuals 
ranked third in reported hate crimes in 1997, registering 1,102 or 
13.7% of reported incidents. And, gender-motivated violence occurs in 
our country at alarming rates. According to the Leadership Conference 
on Civil Rights, ``society is beginning to realize that many assaults 
against women are not `random' acts of violence but are actually bias-
related crimes.''
  In addition, according to the California Attorney General, more than 
1,800 of the 8,000 hate crimes reported by the FBI were committed in 
California. That's a shocking number when one considers the motivation 
behind a hate crime. These are truly among the ugliest of crimes, in 
which the perpetrator thinks the victim is less of a human being 
because of his or her gender, skin color, religion, sexual orientation 
or disability.
  By enacting this legislation, federal prosecutors will be able to 
work in full partnership with their state counterparts. In Wyoming, 
despite clear evidence that the killing of Matthew Shepard was 
motivated by bigotry against homosexuals, federal authorities lacked 
jurisdiction to assist state and local authorities in investigating the 
case.
  It is imperative, therefore, that Congress move swiftly to address 
this situation and enact this legislation. Although the Byrd and 
Shepard, as well as the Littleton and Chicago atrocities, all have 
shocked the conscience of our nation, many hate crimes happen daily in 
our communities and do not receive national exposure and universal 
condemnation.
  For example, an 18-year-old San Francisco youth was savagely attacked 
and beaten after a recent athletic event between St. Ignatius College 
Preparatory School and Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory School. 
During the beating, his attackers yelled racial

[[Page S9042]]

slurs at him. Just a few days later, a 17-year-old senior at San Marin 
High School was beaten outside his school in Novato, a derogatory word 
regarding his presumed sexual orientation was etched into his arm with 
a pen.
  And, in an especially disturbing case in Ventura, California, four 
skinheads attacked a Latino couple and an African-American couple 
returning from a high school homecoming date. Singing, and then 
shouting racial epithets, the skinheads followed the two couples and 
threw a brick at the head of the African-American teenager. When the 
students tried to drive away, the skinheads kicked the car and beat it 
with a baseball bat, causing $2,000 in damage.
  These recent cases show far more vividly than I can express here 
today why we need this legislation now more than ever.
  This amendment does not create any ``special interests.'' Hate crimes 
are not just the concern of any one race, one gender, or one segment of 
society. The victims of these types of attacks are black and white, 
young and old, gay and straight, mother and son, father and daughter. 
Most importantly, they are all human beings whom other human beings 
loved and depended on. No one, no matter where he lives or to what 
group she belongs can be certain who will suffer from senseless acts of 
violence sparked by bigotry, hatred and prejudice.
  History is replete with instances in which mindless fear, ignorance 
and prejudice propel unspeakable acts of inhumanity. There is a great 
monument to this in this very city: the Holocaust Museum. The Holocaust 
Museum serves as a stark and cogent reminder of how unchecked hatred 
can spiral into the genocide of countless millions of Jews and others 
who were singled out by Nazi Germany for no other reason than that they 
were different.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, as recent events suggest, we do not 
have to look back sixty years to find example of inhumanity fostered by 
hate. We can look across the oceans to Kosovo, where the consequences 
of ``ethnic cleansing,'' mass rapes, and rampant crime, all point to 
the utter disregard for life and human dignity.

  Mr. President, American values do not include attacking those who are 
``different'' or those with whom we disagree. No one here can 
reasonably argue that violently attacking a person because of his or 
her race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation is an acceptable 
form of behavior.
  No one here can reasonably argue that protecting American values 
should not include protecting women, disabled persons, or gays and 
lesbians from hate crimes.
  And no one here today need fear a breakdown of society simply because 
we extend Federal protection from acts of violent prejudice to those 
members of our society who currently face such an extraordinary threat 
of hate violence.
  Instead, as Americans, we value the freedom to be individuals. We 
value the freedom to express ourselves peacefully. And, above all, Mr. 
President, we value freedom from fear and tyranny.
  And, what we must take from the experience of World War II and Kosovo 
is that our nation must never sit still and permit acts of hatred to go 
unpunished and undeterred.
  That is why, if we truly want to defend American values, we should 
work to give our citizens protection from those who would do them harm 
simply based upon their race, gender, disability or sexual orientation.
  And, the Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment aims to send a message to 
our nation and the world that the singling out of an individual because 
of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability will not go 
unnoticed or unpunished.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment will make certain that those who 
commit violent acts because someone is of the ``wrong gender, religion, 
race, sexual orientation, or disability'' will be prosecuted because 
everyone, I repeat, everyone has a right to be free from violence and 
fear when they are going to school, work, travel, or doing something as 
simple as going to a movie.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the Hate Crimes Prevention 
Amendment, which includes this important measure. I also urge the 
conferees on the Commerce, Justice, States appropriations bill to 
maintain this position during the conference. All Americans, and our 
future generations, deserve no less.
  Mr. SCHUMER. When we passed the first Hate Crimes Law there were 
those who said that it was unnecessary and that hate crimes were 
overblown.
  Then came the news of James Byrd in Texas, Matthew Shepard in 
Wyoming, William Gaither in Alabama, Gary Matson and Scott Mowder in 
California--young men who were victims of crimes that desecrate 
America.
  Today's debate goes back to our original fight. Does this Congress 
believe that there are those in America who are motivated by hate? Does 
this Congress believe that there is more that can be done to condemn, 
prosecute and prevent violent hate? Or do we believe--even after James 
Byrd, even after Matthew Shepard, even after William Gaither, even 
after Gary Matson and Scott Mowder--that Hate Crimes are overblown?
  Since we started keeping statistics in 1991 the FBI has documented 
over 50,000 hate crimes. But they could prosecute only 37 because the 
current law is too narrow.
  The Kennedy bill completes the law. It gives it teeth. The Kennedy 
bill adds sexual orientation to hate crimes, an omission that has sent 
a message to those who feed off hate, that bigotry against gays and 
lesbians is somehow less wrong than bigotry against blacks, latinos and 
Jews.
  It removes the civil rights test which gives prosecutors the chance 
to put violent bigots behind bars.
  As a nation, we have divergent political views but we are bound by 
our commitment to punish acts of bigotry against African Americans, 
Latinos, Jews, and yes--lesbians and gays.
  This is a bill that will bring this nation together. This is a bill 
that will make people proud.
  The only people who need fear the Kennedy bill are those whose 
private hatreds manifests itself in violent rage against the innocent.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the Fourth of July weekend, the nation 
was stunned by the actions of a single young man on a racially 
motivated killing spree. The man's name was Benjamin Smith, and it 
seems clear, he spent his short life consumed by hatred. Because of 
this hatred, the nation mourns the death of a former University of 
Detroit and Western Michigan University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong 
and doctoral student Won-Joon Yoon, both the victims of hate crime.
  Benjamin Smith was just one of many who unleashed his hate onto 
others through violence. According to FBI statistics, at least one hate 
crime occurs every hour in the United States. That means at least one 
violent crime each hour is motivated by bias. Hate crimes have no place 
in a society founded on tolerance and equality. There must be a clear 
message to hate-mongers like Benjamin Smith, that the federal 
government will do everything in its power so that the perpetrators of 
bias crimes will be investigated, prosecuted and punished as quickly as 
possible. But the federal government is limited to a certain extent in 
its ability to assist state and local prosecutors in their 
investigations of hate crime.
  That's why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Hate 
Crimes Protection Act, a bill which would amend the existing federal 
hate crimes law and expand the federal government's role in the 
investigation and prosecution of bias-inspired conduct. The federal 
government has always had a special role in stifling violence and 
discriminatory treatment. This Act continues in that tradition by 
strengthening federal authority to ensure that racially-motivated 
criminals are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
  This amendment would also expand the definition of hate crime, which 
now only pertains to the victim's race, color, religion and natural 
origin, to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, 
and disability. By expanding the definition of hate crime, the nation 
sends a clear message that it will not tolerate any violent crime, 
especially targeted at those who have traditionally been more 
vulnerable to violence.
  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act has the support of over 100 civil 
rights and law enforcement organizations, as well

[[Page S9043]]

as a broad range of state and local government associations, and state 
Attorneys General. These groups, who work with the victims of hate 
crimes on a daily basis, understand that violent hate crimes, not only 
affect the victim's family, but are injurious to the entire community. 
Because hate crimes have a such a deep impact on society, these civil 
rights and law enforcement organizations support the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act, and the role it gives the federal government in 
ensuring that perpetrators of bias crime are subject to enhanced 
prosecutions and penalties.
  I am pleased to join a distinguished list of cosponsors on this 
amendment and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this Act 
and take a stand against hate crime.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State 
and Judiciary Fiscal Year 2000 bill.
  This legislation will provide the Federal Government a needed tool to 
combat the destructive impact of hate crimes on our society. The 
amendment also recognizes that hate crimes are not just limited to 
crimes committed because of race, color, religion, or national origin, 
but are also directed at individuals because of their gender, sexual 
orientation or disability.
  Mr. President, any crime hurts our society, but crimes motivated by 
hate are especially harmful. This amendment would take two important 
steps to strengthen existing Federal hate crimes law.
  First, the amendment would expand the situations when the Department 
of Justice can prosecute defendants for violent crimes based on race, 
color, religion or national origin. Second, the amendment would 
authorize the Department of Justice to prosecute individuals who commit 
violent crimes against others because of a victim's disability, gender, 
or sexual orientation provided there is a sufficient connection with 
interstate commerce.
  Many states, including my state of Vermont, have already passed 
strong hate crimes laws, and I applaud them in this endeavor. An 
important principle of this amendment is that it allows for Federal 
prosecution of hate crimes without impeding the rights of states to 
prosecute these crimes.
  Federal prosecutions under this amendment would still be subject to 
the current provision of law that requires the Attorney General or 
another senior official of the Justice Department to certify that a 
federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice. Mr. 
President, such a requirement under current law has ensured that states 
are the primary adjudicators of the perpetrators of hate crimes, not 
the Federal government.
  This has meant that in recent years the existing Federal hate crimes 
law has been used only in carefully selected cases. For example, there 
have been an average of only 5.2 prosecutions per year under current 
law from Fiscal Year 1990 through Fiscal Year 1996.
  Additionally, Federal authorities will consult with State and Local 
law enforcement officials before initiating an investigation or 
prosecution. Both of these are important provisions to ensure that we 
are not infringing on the rights of States to prosecute crimes.
  Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity today to take a strong 
stand against hate crimes, and I urge them to do so by supporting this 
important legislation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the amendment seeks to deter violent crime 
borne out of prejudice and hatred. Since 1991, almost 50,000 hate 
crimes have been voluntarily reported to the FBI. More than 8,000 were 
reported in l997 alone, and many more probably occurred.
  I am of the view that violent hate crimes stain our national 
greatness. This amendment cannot erase the stain entirely, but it is a 
step toward removing the immunity from prosecution that perpetrators 
have enjoyed for too long.
  The amendment will close the loopholes in current federal hate crimes 
law and remove the straightjacket from local law enforcement so they 
can get federal help when they need it.
  The amendment does three things:
  First, it would remove restrictions on the types of situations in 
which the Justice Department can prosecute defendants for violent 
crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin.
  Second, it would assure that crimes targeted against victims because 
of disability, gender or sexual orientation that cause death or bodily 
injury can be prosecuted if there is a sufficient connection to 
interstate commerce.
  Third, it would require the Attorney General to certify in writing 
that she had consulted with State and local law enforcement and that 
they had asked for federal help, or did not have jurisdiction or, as in 
current law, that federal prosecution is necessary to secure 
substantial justice in eradicating hate-based crimes.
  Under current law, the Justice Department can prosecute crimes 
motivated by race, religion and ethnicity only if two tests are 
satisfied. First, DoJ must prove bias was the motive. Second, DoJ must 
prove the perpetrator intended to prevent the individual from doing 
certain federally protected things, such as serving on a jury, 
enrolling or attending a public school, or applying for or enjoying 
employment.
  Motive for the crime is a matter for the jury to determine. And, as 
is the case for every element of a criminal offense, DoJ would have to 
prove motive beyond a reasonable doubt. Motive plays the same rule 
under federal and state anti-discrimination laws as it does under the 
current federal hate crimes law. My amendment does not affect this.
  It is the second test which has prevented the law from reaching many 
cases where individuals kill or injure others because of racial or 
religious hatred. In 1994, a jury acquitted 3 white supremacists who 
had assaulted 3 African-Americans. Jurors revealed after the trial that 
they felt racial animus had been established but not that the 
defendants intended to prevent the victims from participating in a 
federally protected activity. My amendment addresses this limitation.
  Under my amendment, DoJ would still have to satisfy the first test 
and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bias was involved. But in 
cases of crimes motivated by race, religion and ethnicity, DoJ would no 
longer be limited to those situations where the victim was engaged in 
or enjoying a federally protected activity.
  In 1996, 88 current members of the Senate voted to support a similar 
provision in the Church Arson Prevention Act.
  Under my amendment, federal involvement in prosecuting crimes based 
on sexual orientation, disability or gender AND where bodily injury or 
death result would be limited to those instances where the violent 
crime has a sufficient connection with interstate commerce.
  This provision is critical for the 28 states that have no authority 
to prosecute bias-motivated crimes based on disability or sexual 
orientation, and for the 29 states that have no authority to prosecute 
bias-motivated crimes based on gender, like the Son of Sam serial 
killings in New York.
  The amendment would provide two levels of penalties in all cases of 
hate crimes:
  1. Imprisonment up to 10 years for persons who cause bodily injury, 
or through the use of fire, firearms or explosives, attempts to cause 
bodily injury; and
  2. Imprisonment up to life if death results or if the offense 
includes kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit 
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
  Some believe that every crime is a hate crime. Every crime is tragic, 
but not all crime is based on hate. A hate crime occurs when the 
perpetrator intentionally chooses the victim because of who the victim 
is. A hate crime affects not only the victim but an entire community or 
group of people.
  Some believe this amendment would provide special protection to 
certain groups. But it is perpetrators who intentionally single out 
victims because of who they are in an attempt to send a chilling 
message to society or others in that group of people.
  Some argue that hate crimes laws threaten free speech. Hate crimes 
laws punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts, no matter how 
violent those thoughts or beliefs might be. Nothing in this amendment 
would prohibit or deny the lawful expression of one's deeply held 
religious beliefs. However,

[[Page S9044]]

causing or attempting to cause bodily injury is clearly not protected 
speech.
  Some have expressed concern that this amendment would federalize 
crimes that are better left to the states to address. Today, there is 
overlapping jurisdiction in the case of many homicides, bank robberies, 
kidnaping and fraud. Like these areas, when both federal and state hate 
crimes statutes apply, there will be no need for federal prosecution in 
the vast majority of cases.
  The amendment will not invite a tsunami of new cases. In no one year 
since the first hate crime law was enacted in 1968 has there been more 
than 10 indictments. In fact, from 1992 to 1997, federal officials 
prosecuted only 33 cases, or an average of fewer than 6 hate crimes 
cases a year. Mr. Eric Holder testified that this amendment will only 
lead to ``a modest increase in the number of cases.'' The significance 
of this amendment is to backstop state and local law enforcement by 
giving them extra tools to fight hate crime, not to open the floodgates 
to frivolous cases.
  Even in states with broad hate crimes laws, the higher penalties 
available under federal statute, the complexity of the investigation, 
the procedural advantages of a federal prosecution, or the failure of a 
state prosecution may make federal prosecution desirable.
  All but 8 states have hate crimes statutes, but only 21 cover sexual 
orientation, 22 cover gender and 21 cover disability. Despite the clear 
evidence that last year's brutal murder of Matthew Shepard was 
motivated by hatred of gays, federal authorities were unable to assist 
state and local authorities in investigating the case because Wyoming 
had no hate crime law and federal agencies lacked the authority.
  Evidence indicates that hate crimes are under reported, but FBI 
statistics show that since 1991 hate crimes have nearly doubled, with 
more than 8,000 reported in l997. Race-related hate crimes were by far 
the most common, accounting for 60%. Hate crime based on religion 
accounted for 17%, and hate crimes against gays and lesbians, which 
jumped by 8% last year, accounted for 14% of all hate crimes reported.
  The federal government has a long history in combating hate crimes:
  In addition to the landmark civil rights laws of the l960s,
  In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act to keep track 
of hate crimes;
  In 1994, Congress enacted the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act 
to allow for increased sentences for offenses found beyond a reasonable 
doubt to be hate crimes; in 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against 
Women Act; and in 1996 Congress enacted the Church Arson Prevention 
Act.
  Under the able leadership of Senator Hatch, the Judiciary Committee 
has held several hearings on the problem of hate crimes. In my view the 
record overwhelmingly established the need for this legislation.
  As if we need any further evidence, we need only look to the Fourth 
of July weekend headlines describing brutal acts of violence aimed at 
Orthodox Jews, Asian-Americans, African-Americans and a gay couple in 
California.
  We must correct the deficiencies in current law. Today, a crime 
motivated by race, religion or ethnic origin can be prosecuted by 
federal authorities because it occurred on a public sidewalk but not if 
it took place in the private parking lot across the street. This is 
wrong. I believe Congress must focus the full force of the federal 
government on investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.
  The vote on this amendment will be a referendum on whether members 
will continue to tolerate violent acts borne of prejudice.
  In closing, I would say to my colleagues that this is not a problem 
that needs further study. The evidence is in, and it is clear. We need 
to send a strong and unequivocal message that hate crimes will no 
longer be tolerated; that the full force of federal law enforcement 
will be brought to bear in prosecuting these violent acts.
  I hope my colleagues will ask themselves the following question. If 
they have a child or know of a child who has a disability, a child who 
is gay, or who is a girl, and that child suffers bodily injury or 
worse, death, simply because of who he or she is, do you want that 
child to be just another statistic that is studied, or do you want the 
perpetrator to be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by the Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act?


                           amendment no. 1325

    (Purpose: To provide for a study on older individuals and crime)

       At the end of title I, add the following:
       Sec.  . (a) In this section:
       (1) The term ``hate crime'' has the meaning given the term 
     in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).
       (2) The term ``older individual'' means an individual who 
     is age 65 or older.
       (b) The Attorney General shall conduct a study concerning--
       (1) whether an order individual is more likely than the 
     average individual to be the target of a crime;
       (2) the extent of crimes committed against older 
     individuals; and
       (3) the extent to which crimes committed against older 
     individuals are hate crimes.
       (c) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing the results of the study.

  Mr. GRAHAM. My amendment would require the Attorney General to 
conduct a study on crimes against older individuals no later than 180 
days after the date of enactment of this legislation.
  The population aged 65 years or older numbered 34.1 million in 1997 
and will continue to grow as the baby boomer generation ages. These 
individuals are particularly vulnerable to crime.
  Because they have made the determination that our large elderly 
population is susceptible to monetary scams and physical acts of 
intimidation, criminals defraud the elderly in areas ranging from 
telemarketing to health care fraud to securities and insurance.
  Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials throughout Florida 
are spending more and more of their time in efforts against the cheats, 
fly-by-night operators, and other criminals who are targeting the 
elderly for financial profit.
  The losses suffered as a result of these crimes not only affect the 
elderly and their families but also squander resources for programs 
that provide services to millions of needy elderly Americans.
  Mr. President, we can and must do better.
  My amendment will require the Justice Department study to examine two 
vital issues: (1) whether an individual over 65 is more likely than the 
average individual to be the target of a crime; and (2) the extent of 
crimes committed against individuals over 65.
  This amendment gives the Senate the opportunity to express its 
determination to protect this important segment of American society 
from criminals.
  In his national bestseller, ``The Greatest Generation,'' NBC news 
anchor Tom Brokaw discusses the heroics of the World War II generation 
and how they saved the world from tyranny. It would be a shame if the 
generation that protected us in its youth was allowed to become victims 
of scam artists and violent criminals in its later years.
  Mr. President, this study will be a first step toward freeing older 
Americans from the threat of crime. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this important measure.


                           amendment no. 1326

(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, 2000.
       (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.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1327

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to promoting 
                          travel and tourism)

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

     SEC. 2__. SENSE OF SENATE WITH RESPECT TO PROMOTING TRAVEL 
                   AND TOURISM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

[[Page S9045]]

       (1) an effective public-private partnership of Federal, 
     State, and local governments and the travel and tourism 
     industry can successfully market the United States as the 
     premiere international tourist destination in the world;
       (2) the private sector, States, and cities currently spend 
     more than $1,000,000,000 annually to promote particular 
     destinations within the United States to international 
     visitors;
       (3) other nations are spending hundreds of millions of 
     dollars annually to promote the visits of international 
     tourists to their countries, and the United States will miss 
     a major marketing opportunity if it fails to aggressively 
     compete for an increased share of international tourism 
     expenditures as they continue to increase over the next 
     decade;
       (4) a well-funded, well-coordinated international marketing 
     effort, combined with additional public and private sector 
     efforts, would help small and large businesses, as well as 
     State and local governments, share in the anticipated growth 
     of the international travel and tourism market in the 21st 
     century; and
       (5) a long-term marketing effort should be supported to 
     promote increased travel to the United States for the benefit 
     of every sector of the economy.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should enact this year, with adequate funding 
     from available resources, legislation that would support 
     international promotional activities by the United States 
     National Tourism Organization to help brand, position, and 
     promote the United States as the premiere travel and tourism 
     destination in the world.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1328

(Purpose: To study the benefits of establishing an electronic commerce 
           extension program at the Department of Commerce.)

       On page 65, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 209. STUDY A GENERAL ELECTRONIC EXTENSION PROGRAM.

       Not later than six months after the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall report to Congress on 
     possible benefits from a general electronic commerce 
     extension program to help small businesses, not limited to 
     manufacturers, in all parts of the nation identify and adopt 
     electronic commerce technology and techniques, so that such 
     businesses can fully participate in electronic commerce. Such 
     a general extension service would be analogous to the 
     Manufacturing Extension Program managed by the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Cooperative 
     Extension Service managed by the Department of Agriculture. 
     The report shall address, at a minimum, the following--
       (a) the need for or opportunity presented by such a 
     program;
       (b) some of the specific services that such a program 
     should provide and to whom;
       (c) how such a program would serve firms in rural or 
     isolated areas;
       (d) how such a program should be established, organized, 
     and managed;
       (e) the estimated costs of such a program; and
       (f) the potential benefits of such a program to both small 
     businesses and the economy as a whole.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1329

       At page 59, line 14 after the colon insert the following ?
       ``Provided further, That of the amounts provided, 
     $6,000,000 shall be made available to Pacific Coastal tribes 
     (as defined by the Secretary of Commerce) through the 
     Department of Commerce, which shall allocate the funds to 
     tribes in California and Oregon, and to tribes in Washington 
     after consultation with the Washington State Salmon Recovery 
     Funding Board; provided further that the Secretary ensure the 
     aforementioned $6 million be used for restoration of Pacific 
     Salmon populations listed under the Endangered Species Act; 
     provided further that funds to tribes in Washington shall be 
     used only for grants for planning (not to exceed 10% of 
     grant), physical design, and completion of restoration 
     projects; and provided further, that each tribe receiving a 
     grant in Washington State derived from the aforementioned $6 
     million provide a report on the specific use and 
     effectiveness of such recovery project grant in restoring 
     listed Pacific Salmon populations, which report shall be made 
     public and shall be provided to the Committees on 
     appropriatioins in the U.S. House of Representatives and the 
     U.S. Senate through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board by 
     December 1, 2000.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my amendment will provide the Pacific 
coastal tribes of Washington, Oregon, and California with salmon 
recovery funding.
  I would like to start by expressing my deep appreciation to 
Subcommittee Chairman Gregg and subcommittee ranking member, Senator 
Holllings, for including in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
bill, $80 million for the Pacific coastal salmon recovery account. 
Given the fiscal constraints I am pleased the money was made available.
  The Pacific coastal salmon initiative was proposed by the 
Administration to help address the rash of endangered species listings 
of salmon along the coast. The Administration's initiative called for 
the funding of $100 million with up to 10% of that money going to the 
Pacific coastal tribes. Another portion of the initiative called for 
increased personnel for the National Marine Fisheries Service in order 
to handle a higher workload brought about by new ESA listings around 
the nation. The NMFS received some funding in the bill to undertake 
this initial work.
  The only party to this initiative that did not receive funding was 
the tribes. I do not know why this decision was made, but I believe it 
sends the wrong message and we must remedy the situation. My amendment 
directs funds to Pacific coastal tribes to participate in the salmon 
recovery process. We need them to make this process work.
  I would like to recognize that my amendment to ensure tribal 
participation is cosponsored by Senators Inouye, Boxer, Feinstein, and 
Wyden. I would also like to recognize the support of Governor Gary 
Locke of Washington and Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon. Lastly, I 
appreciate the support of King County Executive Ron Sims, Pierce County 
Executive Doug Sutherland, and Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel.
  The reason all these people are supporting this amendment is that 
they know the tribes are a vital partner in the coordinated effort to 
recover salmon. Successful recovery is going to require all parties 
working as a team. Leaving the tribes out of the equation is not a way 
to build the team.
  Some may suggest that my amendment is unnecessary because the tribes 
can apply to the states for a portion of the money being provided to 
the states. However, tribes should not have to receive these funds 
through a state grant process or via any other mechanism that might 
diminish their roles as sovereign governments. It is Congress that can 
do the right thing at this stage to respect the rights of the Tribes to 
be self-governing and join their counterpart governments in this vital 
partnership.
  I appreciate the cooperation of the Chairman and my colleagues in 
agreeing to the adoption of my amendment to make the Pacific coastal 
tribes true partners in our effort to recover threatened and endangered 
salmon runs.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1330

    (Purpose: To improve the process for deporting criminal aliens)

       On page 45, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec.  . (a) In implementing the Institutional Hearing 
     Program and the Institutional Removal Program of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Attorney General 
     shall give priority to--
       (1) those aliens serving a prison sentence for a serious 
     violent felony, as defined in section 3559(c)(2)(F) of title 
     18, United Stats Code; and
       (2) those aliens arrested by the Border Patrol and 
     subsequently incarcerated for drug violations.
       (b) Not later than March 31, 2000, the Attorney General 
     shall submit a report to Congress describing the steps taken 
     to carry out subsection (a).
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1331

 (Purpose: To require Congressional notification prior to the sale of 
 properties that have been used as U.S. embassies, U.S. Consulates or 
  the residences of the U.S. Ambassador, Chief of Mission or Consuls 
                                General)

       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following:

     SEC._. NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO SELL CERTAIN U.S. 
                   PROPERTIES.

       Consistent with the regular notification procedures 
     established pursuant to Section 34 of the State Department 
     Basic Authorities Act of 1956, the Secretary of State shall 
     notify in writing the Committees on Foreign Relations and 
     Appropriations in the Senate and the committees on 
     International Relations and Appropriations in the House of 
     Representatives sixty days in advance of any action taken by 
     the Department of enter into any contract for the final sale 
     of properties owned by the United States that have served as 
     United States Embassies, Consulates General, or residences 
     for United States Ambassadors, Chief of Missions, or Consuls 
     General.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1332

     (Purpose: To earmark funds for a new truck safety initiative)

       On page 27, line 15, after ``Initiative,'' insert ``of 
     which $500,000 is available for a new truck safety 
     initiative, in the state of New Jersey.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1333

 (Purpose: To allow the City of Camden to retain funding from a fiscal 
                    year 1996 law enforcement grant)

       On page 45, after line 9, insert the following:

[[Page S9046]]

       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $190,000 of funds granted to the City of Camden, New Jersey, 
     in 1996 as a part of a Federal local law enforcement block 
     grant may be retained by Camden and spent for the purposes 
     permitted by the grant through the end of fiscal year 2000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1334

(Purpose: To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 
  of 1949 to continue and extend authority for transfers to State and 
   local governments of certain property for law enforcement, public 
                safety, and emergency response purposes)

       On page 111, insert between lines 7 and 8 the following:
       Sec. 620. Section 203(p)(1)(B) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(p)(1)(B)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (ii);
       (2) by inserting ``or public safety'' after ``law 
     enforcement'';
       (3) by striking ``(i)'';
       (4) by striking ``(I)'' and inserting ``(i)''; and
       (5) by striking ``(II)'' and inserting ``(ii)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1335

       On page 15, after line 2, insert:


        ``high intensity interstate gang activity areas program

       ``For expenses necessary to establish and implement the 
     High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas Program 
     (including grants, contracts, cooperative agreements and 
     other assistance) pursuant to Section 205 of S. 254 as passed 
     by the Senate on May 20, 1999, and consistent with the 
     funding proportions established therein, $20,000,000.''
       On page 21, line 16, strike ``3,156,895,000'' and insert 
     ``3,136,895,000.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1336

 (Purpose: To provide funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
 Administration to upgrade Great Lakes water gauging stations in order 
  to ensure compliance with Year 2000 (Y2K) computer date processing 
                             requirements)

       On page 57, line 16, strike ``$1,776,728,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,777,118,000''.
       On page 57, line 17, before the colon, insert the 
     following: ``; of which $390,000 shall be used by the 
     National Ocean Service to upgrade an additional 13 Great 
     Lakes water gauging stations in order to ensure compliance 
     with Year 2000 (Y2K) computer date processing requirements''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Gregg and Hollings and 
Reid for their efforts in helping an amendment be added to the 
managers' package which Senator DeWine and I offered relative to Great 
Lakes stations and measuring stations for water levels. It is an 
important amendment for the Great Lakes.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter that I and Senator DeWine wrote 
to Senators Gregg and Hollings dated June 24 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 1999.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Colleagues: We are writing to request that our 
     amendment providing $390,000 for upgrades to 13 Great Lakes 
     gauging stations be included in the managers' amendment to 
     the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. It has only 
     recently come to our attention that NOAA/NOS was proposing to 
     close rather than upgrade these 13 stations due primarily to 
     budget consideration. Upgrades to the stations supported by 
     the one-time appropriation in amendment will cut the long-
     term operating expenses for the stations by half or more 
     while ensuring timely transfer of the essential data to the 
     end users in the private sector and other Federal agencies. 
     Because the old technology employed in these stations is not 
     Y2K compliant, it is essential that the upgrades be provided 
     this year.
       Many of the 13 stations slated for closure are of 
     particular importance to the monitoring network. Three of the 
     stations have been in operation since the turn of the last 
     century (1899-1901), forming a central part of the long term 
     record for Great Lakes water levels. Their closure represents 
     a grave loss to the continuity of the data. Six of the 
     gauging stations are located in connecting channels, 
     geographic locations for which water levels are nearly 
     impossible to accurately interpolate from other sites and 
     which are essential to determining flow rates between the 
     lakes. Closure of these connecting channel stations will 
     critically injure our ability to determine flow of water, 
     contaminants, and other substances among the Great Lakes.
       Furthermore, the proposed reduction in gauging capability 
     comes at a time when such capability is needed most. Great 
     Lakes jurisdictions at the federal, state, provincial and 
     binational levels are confronting a series of complex issues 
     associated with water withdrawal, consumptive use and 
     removal, including export. The Great Lakes system is 
     currently experiencing dramatic declines in water levels 
     compared with just last year, ranging from an 8'' drop in 
     Lake Superior to 30'' in Lake Ontario. Overall, water levels 
     have changed from extreme highs to levels nearly a foot below 
     the long-term averages. This water level reduction has 
     already had profound impacts on commercial navigation and 
     recreational boating. Lake level regulation, dredging needs, 
     and other priorities also are set based on the expectations 
     of water level fluctuations. All of these issues have one 
     thing in common: they are fundamentally dependent upon the 
     accurate and comprehensive data provided by the 49 long-term 
     Great Lakes stations in the National Water Level Observation 
     Network. Federal, state and local decision makers in the 
     Great Lakes region rely upon this network to make informed 
     decisions regarding resource management and policy.
       We believe that the funding level requested is both modest 
     and justifiable given the importance of the water level 
     gauging network to the Great Lakes region and the long-term 
     cost savings that will be realized.
           Sincerely,
     Mike DeWine.
     Carl Levin.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1337

       On page 34, line 25, after ``title'', insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated not 
     to exceed $550,000 shall be available to the Lincoln Action 
     Program's Youth Violence Alternative Project.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1338

       On page 26 of S. 1217, line 2 after the word ``Programs'', 
     strike the period and insert the following:
       Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available to the TeamMates 
     of Nebraska project.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1339

    (Purpose: To provide for an analysis by the Securities Exchange 
  Commission of the effects of electronic communications networks and 
                  night trading on securities markets)

       On page 98, line 16, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``:  Provided further, That the Commission shall 
     conduct a study on the effects of electronic communications 
     networks and extended trading hours on securities markets, 
     including effects on market volatility, market liquidity, and 
     best execution practices''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1340

(Purpose: To provide funding for task forces coordinated by the United 
States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the 
              Western and Northern Districts of New York)

       On page 8, line 13, strike ``$25,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$27,000,000''.
       On page 8, line 23, insert before the period ``; and of 
     which $1,000,000 shall be for the task force coordinated by 
     the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern 
     District of Wisconsin, and $1,000,000 shall be for task 
     forces coordinated by the Office of the United States 
     Attorney for the Western District of New York and task forces 
     coordinated by the Office of the United States Attorney for 
     the Northern District of New York.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1341

       (Purpose: To allocate funds for Tibetan Exchange Program)

       On page 78, line 8, before the period insert the following: 
     Provided further, That of the amount appropriated under this 
     heading for the Fulbright program, such sums as may be 
     available may be used for the Tibetan Exchange Program''.

                          ____________________