[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17383-17409]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY AND RELATED 
              AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued

  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment 
until 4 p.m. today, with no call for the regular order served to bring 
back the amendment before that time. That way, we will have time to 
talk, and meanwhile our managers can go forward.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, while the two 
leaders are on the floor, the original point of order was made by me, 
so I believe I have a right to talk about this.
  I am not going to talk about the substance of the amendment but talk 
about our two leaders. Speaking for Democrats and Republicans, we are 
very proud of our leadership. The majority leader and the minority 
leader, I think, do an outstanding job of representing their respective 
interests. The legislative branch of government depends on these two 
men leading their respective caucuses.
  We should be doing less procedural battling and more substantive 
battling. I hope the majority leader hears what the Democrats are 
saying. We want to legislate. We are not trying to stop anything from 
going through. We want our rights to be protected. We want the ability 
to offer amendments. That is all we are saying.
  This was proven in the very good debate we had. We were allowed to 
have the debate as a result of the work done by our minority leader. I 
think it is important we have more issues debated here. I hope during 
this weekend the two leaders realize, as I know they do, the importance 
of having the Senate act as the Senate and that we start debating 
substantive issues.
  I think this colloquy between the two leaders was very substantive 
and informative. I hope it will lead to a much better and more 
productive Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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 (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
hours of debate, equally divided, on the amendment that is about to be 
offered by the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. No second degrees.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No points of order, no second degrees.
  Mr. GREGG. No second degrees. And at the end of that time, we are 
prepared to accept it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We are prepared to accept it. And as I said, no points 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1285

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for community oriented policing 
                               services)

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the amendment at 
the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it is not.
  Mr. BIDEN. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] for himself, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Robb, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
     Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Lincoln, 
     Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Breaux, Mr. 
     Moynihan, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
     Cleland, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, 
     Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
     Specter, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. 
     Jeffords proposes an amendment numbered 1285.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 32, after line 7, insert the following:


                  community oriented policing services

                    violent crime reduction programs

       For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 104-322) (referred to 
     under this heading as the ``1994 Act''), including 
     administrative costs, $325,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended for Public Safety and Community Policing Grants 
     pursuant to title I of the 1994 Act, of which $140,000,000 
     shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That $180,000,000 shall be available for school 
     resource officers: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $17,325,000 shall be expended for program management and 
     administration: Provided further, That of the unobligated 
     balances available in this program, $170,000,000 shall be 
     used for innovative community policing programs, of which 
     $90,000,000 shall be used for the Crime Identification 
     Technology Initiative, $25,000,000 shall be used for the 
     Bulletproof Vest Program, and $25,000,000 shall be used for 
     the Methamphetamine Program. Provided further, That the funds 
     made available under this heading for the Methamphetamine 
     Program shall be expended as directed in Senate Report 106-
     76: Provided further, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading for school resource officers, $900,000 shall be 
     for a grant to King County, Washington.
       On page 21, line 16, strike ``$3,156,895,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,151,895,000''.
       On page 26, line 13, strike ``$1,547,450,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,407,450,000''.
       On page 27, line 13, strike ``$350,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$260,000,000''.
       On page 30, line 21, strike all after ``Initiative'' 
     through ``Program'' on line 23.
       On page 35, line 1, strike ``$218,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$38,000,000''.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the chairman of 
the subcommittee and the ranking member. This is a bit unusual. I am 
violating what the Senator from South Carolina would recognize as the 
Russell Long rule.
  When I first came to the Senate, Russell Long, the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana, was chairman of the Finance Committee. One day 
I walked up to him because I had an amendment to a finance bill. He 
said: I will accept it. I said: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Then 
I got back to my seat in the back row, and a staff person who had 
worked here longer than I had--I had only been here about 3 months--
said: Senator, you really want a rollcall vote on that.
  So I went ahead and I did my little spiel. Then I asked for the yeas 
and nays. The roll was called, and Russell Long voted against the 
amendment and encouraged others to vote against it. It was defeated. I 
walked up to him and said: Mr. Chairman, my Lord, you told me just 15 
minutes ago you would accept my amendment. He said: Yes, I would accept 
your amendment. But I did not say anything about a rollcall vote.
  We are not going to have, I hope, a rollcall vote on this amendment. 
I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for accepting the 
amendment. I apologize to him for speaking on something that is going 
to be accepted. But I think this is of such consequence that it is 
important to remind our colleagues of what we are about to redo.
  A few weeks ago, the Appropriations Committee zeroed out all funding 
for the COPS Program, nearly closing the doors of what I believe to be 
the most

[[Page 17384]]

successful Federal-State cooperative law enforcement program of our 
time.
  This amendment corrects the committee's elimination of the funding 
for the COPS office in the fiscal year 2000. It restores funding for 
the COPS office to perform many of the significant functions in support 
of law enforcement--particularly in getting more cops out on the 
street.
  In doing so, it supersedes--or, basically, makes void--the language 
in the committee report on pages 62 and 63 that would have directed the 
Justice Department to take steps to dismantle the COPS office. Under 
this amendment, the COPS office will remain alive and well for fiscal 
year 2000.
  I am pleased today we have put aside partisan politics in support of 
this effective law enforcement program. Let me make it clear, although 
some of my colleagues on the Republican side worry a little bit about 
this being a Democratic program, it is not a Democratic program. It is 
a bipartisan program. It is a program where even this amendment has 
garnered the cosponsorship of four Republicans and the commitment of 
another several to vote for it. I predict there will be more 
Republicans to vote for it as well.
  I am glad that we have listened to the police officers on the street, 
the police chiefs, the prosecutors, the mayors, the citizens of our 
communities, and our constituents about why they think the COPS Program 
has worked so well.
  As I said, today, joined by 42 of my colleagues, including four 
Republicans, I offer this amendment to restore the COPS Program for 
fiscal year 2000. This amendment restores $495 million in funding for 
the COPS Program for the year 2000.
  This is just one-third of the $1.43 billion that was appropriated in 
1999. But it preserves this vitally important program that has thus far 
funded over 100,000 cops in communities across the country.
  Here is how it will work: $170 million will come from unobligated 
balances for this fiscal year for the COPS office; $5 million in 
unobligated funds from the Bureau of Prisons; $140 million are shifted 
back to the COPS office for programs that it already has successfully 
administered in the past.
  These include the Cops Connect Program, which provides equipment and 
upgrades so that officers from different jurisdictions can talk to each 
other and share vital information; it also includes targeted funding 
for equipment that protects police officers, such as bulletproof vests; 
and for training to identify and take down methamphetamine and other 
drug laboratories.
  And $180 million are put back into the COPS Program to fund the 
hiring of up to an additional 2,400 officers in our public school 
system.
  Most importantly, this amendment restores to the COPS office its 
primary function: putting more cops on the street. Under this 
amendment, there will be funding sufficient to put 1,500 additional 
local law enforcement officers out on the streets in our communities.
  I think we can all agree that this is a small price to pay for lower 
crime rates, safer communities, safer schools, more advanced law 
enforcement equipment, and more responsive police departments.
  I am thrilled to be joined by so many of my colleagues. As I said, 
there are 42 cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the 
cosponsors be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Sponsoring

       Joe Biden (DE) (sponsor).


                               Cosponsors

       (1) Daniel Akaka (HI).
       (2) Jeff Bingaman (NM).
       (3) Tom Daschle (SD).
       (4) Dick Durbin (IL).
       (5) Bob Graham (FL).
       (6) Tom Harkin (IA).
       (7) Ernest Hollings (SC).
       (8) Tim Johnson (SD).
       (9) Edward Kennedy (MA).
       (10) Robert Kerrey (NE).
       (11) Herb Khol (WI).
       (12) Frank Lautenberg (NJ).
       (13) Patrick Leahy (VT).
       (14) Carl Levin (MI).
       (15) Blanche Lincoln (AR).
       (16) Patty Murray (WA).
       (17) Jack Reed (RI).
       (18) Harry Reid (NV).
       (19) Charles Robb (VA).
       (20) Charles Schumer (NY).
       (21) Paul Wellstone (MN).
       (22) John Breaux (LA).
       (23) Patrick Moynihan (NY).
       (24) Evan Bayh (IN).
       (25) Byron Dorgan (ND).
       (26) Richard Bryan (NV).
       (27) John Kerry (MA).
       (28) Max Cleland (GA).
       (29) Paul Sarbanes (MD).
       (30) John Rockefeller (WV).
       (31) Christopher Dodd (CT).
       (32) Barbara Boxer (CA).
       (33) Mary Landrieu (LA).
       (34) Barbara Mikulski (MD).
       (35) Joseph Lieberman (CT).
       (36) Russell Feingold (WI).
       (37) Robert Byrd (WV).
       (38) Arlen Specter (PA).
       (39) Susan Collins (ME).
       (40) Olympia Snowe (ME).
       (41) Robert Torricelli (NJ).
       (42) James Jeffords (VT).

  Mr. BIDEN. It is a challenge for us to apply the lessons we have 
learned over the past years. More cops on the street means crime goes 
down. Law enforcement knows this. The American public knows this. We 
know this. And we must act now.
  We all recognize the importance to communities across our country of 
ensuring the continued success of lowering crime rates.
  Look at this chart. Since the COPS Program began as part of the 1994 
crime bill, arrests have gone way up.
  This is total arrests. Look at all the support we have on this. All 
the law enforcement organizations endorse this program. The mayors 
endorse this program. I thank, by the way, these organizations for 
their continued support of the COPS Program and for their extraordinary 
help with this amendment in particular.
  To the law enforcement community, I say thank you. We should all say 
thank you. We could not have done this without your hard work and 
support, your phone calls, your letters. Your personal appearances have 
resonated with all of us. You are always on the frontline on this, and 
you have always taken a stand against crime. You should be proud.
  I am proud of them. In a recent survey done for the National 
Association of Police Organizations, 85 percent of those surveyed think 
we should extend the COPS Program. The American people don't want the 
program to end. Although we do not extend the COPS Program beyond its 
authorized period through this fiscal year, my friend from New 
Hampshire and my friend from South Carolina know that I have 
continually attempted to extend the program. I will be back in another 
fora trying to extend the COPS Program so that we continue this beyond 
the year 2000.
  For years, when I first wrote this crime bill, back in the early 
1980s, we would debate this, and we would debate it and debate it. The 
editorial writers in this country, primarily from the most established 
newspapers, were very critical of my notion that we should vastly 
increase the number of cops. They would write editorials. One--I think 
it was one of the major papers, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA 
Times, but I don't recall which--said: Been there, done that.
  Well, the truth is, we were never there. The truth is, for the 
previous 20 years, before the Biden crime bill, we did not add 
appreciably to the number of cops in America. If my memory serves me, 
in the 20 largest cities in America over the previous 20 years, 
although crime had grown significantly, we only added about 1 percent 
more cops than existed 20 years earlier. We had never done this before.
  After all the hearings I held as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
being exposed over all those years to the leading criminologists in the 
country, the psychologists, psychiatrists, law enforcement officers, 
social workers, all the experts, I came away convinced of only a few 
things.
  One is, if there is a cop on one corner of the street and no cop on 
the other corner and a crime is going to be committed on a corner, it 
is going to be committed where the cop is not. Sounds pretty basic. It 
is basic. This single most important reason why, beyond the sheer 
numbers, this COPS

[[Page 17385]]

Program has worked, in my view, is because in order to get Federal 
money to hire local cops under this program, local law enforcement 
departments had to decide, as my friend from Virginia knows, to set up 
community policing. When he was Governor, he talked about this. When he 
was Governor, a lot of the Governors and mayors knew about this.
  It was hard to do. Cops didn't want to get out of their cars and walk 
on the beat, figuratively and literally. There was resistance. So we 
said: Look, if you want another cop paid for in part by the Federal 
Government, your whole department has to be a community policing 
department. You have to go back and interface with the community. You 
have to know who owns the corner store. You have to know who lives in 
the house in the middle of the block. You have to know where the drug 
trafficking takes place. You have to know where the gymnasium is where 
the kids hang out. You have to know where the swimming pool is. You 
have to know the people.
  And so one of the reasons, I argue, for the extraordinary success of 
the program is not merely the added numbers of cops but because of the 
way in which they are required to utilize their existing police forces 
in order to get any new cops.
  Now, granted, in one sense this is a small victory in that it only 
continues the program through the time it was intended to continue it.
  I hope we can reach some bipartisan consensus before we get to fiscal 
year 2001 to extend, as my friend from New Hampshire has proposed in an 
amendment we will vote on later today, the violent crime trust fund 
that pays for these cops, the Federal share. I hope we can get some 
bipartisan support on extending the program that continues to put more 
local law enforcement on the ground with the help of Federal dollars.
  I will reserve the remainder of my time in a moment, but I want to 
make it clear that I truly appreciate the willingness of the Senator 
from New Hampshire to reinstate, at least in part, the funding for this 
program which would allow the office to continue through the year 2000. 
I see my friend has risen, and I am happy to yield to him at this time.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Delaware. I appreciate his fine 
comments. We are going to accept his amendment at the point when all 
the folks who want to speak on it have had an opportunity.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield 10 minutes to my friend from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ben Lawsky, 
a detailee from the Judiciary Committee, be granted full floor 
privileges during the remainder of consideration of S. 1217.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, the 
Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Virginia, in offering this 
amendment to preserve the COPS Program for fiscal year 2000.
  Three days ago, we received the latest news on crime in America, and 
the news is good. According to the latest National Crime Victimization 
Survey, nonfatal, violent crime fell 7 percent from 1997. Other figures 
recently released by the FBI indicate that murders dropped about 8 
percent between 1997 and 1998. Overall, the Nation's crime rate has 
fallen more than 21 percent since 1993 and now is at its lowest level 
since 1973.
  My home State of New York has been a shining example of crime 
reduction. Crime is down from one end of New York State to the other. 
In Buffalo, it has fallen by more than 30 percent; in Albany, it is 
down 24 percent; in Nassau County, it is down 24 percent; in New York 
City, overall crime declined 44 percent and murder dropped more than 60 
percent.
  Why the continued good news on crime? Well, I would be happy to 
concede to those on the left that a strong economy has something to do 
with it. I would be happy to concede to those on the right that tougher 
punishment for violent offenders and aggressive crime fighting by both 
Republican and Democratic mayors have played a significant role. But 
just as clearly, enhanced community policing and the COPS Program 
deserve their share of the credit.
  I say to anyone in America, ask your local police about the drop in 
crime in the neighborhoods they patrol. Ask the local neighborhood and 
civic associations. They will tell you, inevitably, about new 
partnerships between police and neighborhood residents. They will tell 
you about successful efforts to deter vandalism, loitering, and 
disorderly conduct--the seeds of more serious neighborhood 
deterioration.
  As pleased as we all should be about the crime fighting successes of 
the past years, now is no time to stand pat. Old and new law 
enforcement challenges require us to maintain our vigilance and our 
efforts. Indeed, the war on crime is sadly a war that never ends. The 
surest way to prevent a return to the bad old days of untamed streets 
and unsafe schools is to do what works: Yes, lock up violent offenders; 
yes, invest in prevention programs; and yes, hire and retain community 
policing officers.
  When I authored the COPS Program in the House of Representatives and 
worked with the Senator from Delaware--we worked in tandem then because 
I was a House Member and he a Senator--I knew that not only the 
increased number of police, but the change in the type of policing, to 
community policing, was going to work. And work it did.
  There is almost unanimous agreement from law enforcement, from people 
on both sides of the criminal justice argument, on the left and on the 
right, that the COPS Program has been a shining success. So when I read 
the words in the committee report, ``The Committee directs that from 
within available funds the COPS office close by the end of the fiscal 
year 2000,'' I was distressed, perturbed, and I was shocked because 
this is a Government program that works. This is not an ideological 
program, and it has such broad support.
  The police agencies, the mayors, and town councils that have put COPS 
funds to such good use over the past 6 years felt the same way. I have 
received many letters from New York police chiefs and mayors over the 
past few weeks about this appropriations bill, and every one contains a 
similar refrain: Please keep the COPS Program in business.
  As the Senator from Delaware knows, we made special efforts when we 
wrote the law to make sure small towns, villages, and counties were 
included. There was a special set-aside so that not all the money would 
go to the big cities. I was then a city representative--and, of course, 
I represent the whole State--representing the people who were most 
fervently for the program, the small town mayors and local county 
people, who could not have afforded these police but for the COPS 
Program.
  It also has let us accomplish so much. In addition to hiring 
officers, it purchased new technology and implemented innovative 
programs to stop domestic violence, all because we created in this 
program the flexibility that if you could take cops off the desks and 
put them on the streets, patrolling the streets, it would work.
  Well, 10,505 newly funded officers later, even the most skeptical New 
Yorkers--and we have many skeptics in our State--are converts to the 
cause of the COPS Program.
  I am proud of this amendment which would keep the COPS Program in 
business for this fiscal year, negating the report language to the 
contrary. That is certainly an improvement over the committee's bill, 
which didn't provide any funding of the program. At the same time, I 
believe the COPS Program deserves even greater funding for fiscal year 
2000 than provided in this amendment because fighting crime is a key to 
building strong communities. In my State, many of the communities have 
rebounded, including New York City, because it is much safer.

[[Page 17386]]

  So I believe it should be a top priority for this Congress to 
reauthorize the COPS Program. Senator Biden and I already tried to do 
it as an amendment to the juvenile justice bill. We will soon 
introduce, along with the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robb, a 
freestanding bill to reauthorize the program, and we will not rest 
until we get the job done.
  But this is an important step forward. I congratulate my friends from 
Delaware and Virginia for their hard work on the issue. I also thank my 
friend, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, for his 
invaluable assistance with this amendment. Again, we will not rest 
until we get the job done.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my friend from 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, first let me thank my friend and colleague 
from Delaware, as well as my friend and colleague from New York, for 
their support.
  As a cosponsor of the Biden amendment, I would like to express my 
strong support for the effort to preserve and restore funding for the 
COPS Program.
  I believe many of our colleagues share my view that protecting our 
Nation's citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic, is a critical 
obligation of the Federal Government. We are committed to try to make 
all of our communities safer from the threat of crime. Today, by 
supporting this amendment and the COPS Program, all of us can make good 
on this commitment.
  The Biden amendment will prevent the COPS Program from expiring as 
the underlying bill provides. Over the next year, the $495 million in 
funding provided by the amendment will put 1,500 new officers on the 
beat, hire 2,400 school resource officers to reduce violence in 
schools, keep hundreds more officers out in their communities rather 
than behind their desks, purchase bulletproof vests, and provide better 
communications equipment and technology. In short, this amendment will 
make a difference to the safety of our communities.
  I am particularly gratified to see the resources devoted to school 
safety. Even before the tragic killings in schools across the Nation, I 
worked to amend the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill in 1997 
to permit the use of COPS funding for school safety grants. The 
following year, with the help of Senators Gregg and Hollings, we 
expanded that program. As a result, this year more than $167 million in 
school safety grants, including funding to hire school resource 
officers, is going to communities across the Nation.
  More generally, the Community-Oriented Policing Services program, or 
COPS, is one of our best strategies for fighting the war on crime. The 
rationale is straightforward, and the results are impressive. In the 
simplest terms, COPS funding means more police on the beat, which means 
less crime.
  The dynamics of COPS in community policing are, of course, more 
complex. The goal is not simply more bodies but better neighborhoods. 
By giving law enforcement the resources to actively engage their 
communities, we develop trust and better communications; we allow 
officers to be proactive and prevent crime before it occurs.
  The bottom line is that the COPS program works. This Nation has the 
lowest crime rate in 25 years. The murder rate is at the lowest point 
in 30 years.
  In my home State of Virginia, we provided funding to put nearly 2,000 
additional officers on the streets. As we have added those officers, we 
have seen a drop in crime. Between 1992 and 1997, murders declined by 
17 percent in Virginia Beach, by 30 percent in Norfolk, and by 48 
percent in Newport News.
  With these statistics, it is not surprising how many are urging the 
Senate to step up to the plate again. My colleagues have already 
mentioned the many organizations asking us to continue COPS funding, 
including the Fraternal Order of Police and the United Conference of 
Mayors.
  In a letter to Majority Leader Lott, Sheriff Dan Smith, president of 
the National Sheriffs Association, stated:

       It is imperative to effective crime control that the COPS 
     program survive. It is a program that is vital to effective 
     law enforcement, and to sheriffs in both rural and urban 
     jurisdictions.

  I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment. We should not be 
satisfied with the lowest crime rate in 25 years. We should work for 
the lowest crime rate ever. This important amendment will help us to 
achieve that goal.
  I again thank my distinguished colleague from Delaware for his 
continued leadership in this important area. I am delighted to work 
with him and with others, and I look forward to the continuation of 
this vital program.
  I yield any time I may have remaining to the principal sponsor of the 
amendment, the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
Senator from Delaware, for yielding me this time.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important amendment to restore 
funding for the successful COPS Program. We know it works and it should 
be continued. Later on, I will also be offering an amendment to restore 
funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program--another vital 
resource for local law enforcement.
  I voted against this bill in committee for one main reason: it drains 
the critical funding needed by our local and state law enforcement to 
help them do their jobs--to fight the drug problems in our communities 
and to keep our streets safe. The bill before us cuts the Byrne grants 
by more than 18 percent. The local law enforcement block grant is cut 
by 24 percent. Neither of these cuts makes sense.
  Our communities need them to beef up their drug and violent crime 
task forces. These grants go straight to the state and local agencies. 
Why would they be cut? Violent crime has gone down, but does that mean 
we should give up the fight? Drugs and crime are a continuous battle 
and now is not the time to let up.
  I've received dozens of letters from Iowa police chiefs and sheriffs 
describing the kind of setbacks that they would suffer if these cuts go 
through.
  This amendment which restores just about a third of the fiscal year 
1999 level funding for Community Oriented Policing Services Program, 
would be a good first step to giving our local communities the support 
they need to do their jobs. Police chiefs and sheriffs from across the 
country have told us loud and clear--the COPS Program is one of the 
1994 Crime Act's most effective programs.
  Consider this: Serious crime is retreating all across the United 
States. Since the COPS Program began, violent crime across the nation 
has dropped 21 percent--in part because local law enforcement used 
these federal grants to hire more officers to keep our streets safe, 
and to upgrade their operations with new technology. In Iowa, the 
murder rate has plummeted 34 percent from last year. Now is not the 
time to cut back on our efforts to fight illegal drugs and violent 
crime.
  Rural America will pay the heaviest price if this amendment is not 
adopted. The COPS Program made a special commitment to include small 
towns and rural areas. Half of all COPS funding goes to agencies 
serving jurisdictions of under 150,000 in population. And its making a 
difference. I hear it all the time from sheriffs and police chiefs 
throughout Iowa.
  I got a letter just the other day from Police Chief Douglas Book of 
Forest City, Iowa--a town of 4,500 people. He said zero-funding COPS 
would be detrimental to his operation. He wrote:

       * * * COPS, by the addition of one officer, has allowed us 
     to provide a school resource officer for 20 hours per week. 
     Something that was non-existent before COPS. Through the 
     addition of the COPS funded officer we were

[[Page 17387]]

     able to be proactive in various areas of our community. One 
     very successful operation resulted in a 75 percent drop in 
     juvenile assaults * * * This funding literally deals with the 
     quality of life in America. Results, not politics, must be 
     the guiding factor * * * COPS works. Fund it. [Douglas Book, 
     Forest Hill Police Chief, 6/23/99]

  Here's another letter I received from Coralville, Iowa Police Chief 
Barry Bedford:

       Without the COPS Program, we would not have been able to 
     keep up with the tremendous increase in the calls for service 
     and crime-related activities, nor would we be able to obtain 
     the vitally needed mobile data computers. This is a program 
     that needs to continue if we are going to keep our 
     communities safe.

  The chiefs are right. Community policing works. It's a flexible 
program that is responsive to law enforcement needs. More cops on the 
beat have an undeniable effect on crime and a community's sense of 
security.
  Funds to hire more than 100,000 officers have been awarded since 1994 
by the COPS to more than 11,300 state and local law enforcement 
agencies across the nation. That's more than half the policing agencies 
in the country. As a result, these officers are joining agencies that 
serve more than 87 percent of the American public.
  Iowa alone has received over $37 million to hire 544 officers. COPS 
funds have also been used to put computers in police cars in Dubuque, 
help officers in Grundy Center deal with vandalism and help Waterloo 
police fight drugs. COPS grants have helped community and county police 
departments hire civilians to do paperwork so more officers can be out 
on the streets. In short, COPS has made our streets and communities 
safer.
  It makes no sense to block such a successful program that directly 
benefits our communities and makes them safer for our families. While 
crime is down--this is not the time to claim victory and retreat. So I 
urge my colleagues to support our amendment that restores this crucial 
law enforcement funding and I also urge that any language in this bill 
that mentions closing down the COPS office this year be deleted.
  I compliment my colleague from Delaware for being a great leader on 
this program. This amendment should be supported and adopted if we 
truly want to support our police officers and our sheriffs' departments 
throughout this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa, and I 
compliment him for his continued support and early support for this 
program.
  I now yield 5 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. I am 
delighted to join with him as an original cosponsor of the amendment. I 
am pleased to work with him with respect to this question of the 
funding of the COPS Program nationally.
  As the Senator from Delaware knows well, back in 1994 I brought the 
original amendment to the floor for the 100,000 police officers at a 
time when people said we weren't going to be able to find the money.
  We managed to reach an agreement through the ingenuity of the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, and an agreement 
with Senator Gramm back then to split some money with respect to 
prisons, which ultimately became the foundation of a rather remarkable 
increase in funding for police officers on a national basis.
  The Senator from Delaware, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
had spent many long years working and fighting to recognize the need to 
have police officers in the streets of America. My own experience as a 
former prosecutor brought me to the Senate with a long-term 
understanding of and commitment to the notion that crimes usually 
aren't committed right in front of a police officer. On too many 
streets in America, and too many corners of our communities, we were 
literally, only a few years ago, abandoning those streets to criminals. 
The ratio of police officer to a felony was diminishing. Felonies were 
going up; the police officers were going down. And there was a direct 
correlation to the disorder, even the chaos in some places, that we 
were inheriting as a result of the lack of capacity for enforcement.
  Having run one of the largest district attorney offices in America, 
one of the 10 largest counties in the country, Middlesex County in 
Massachusetts, I learned firsthand it is not just a police officer on a 
street at a particular moment of time who is going to intercept a crime 
or break up a fight or provide order; those police officers who make 
arrests have to go to court. They have to be able to testify in cases. 
They have to have time to investigate cases. It takes an enormous 
amount of street work, of nonvisible work, to be able to adequately 
staff and supply the police force of the country, the investigative 
capacity of the country, in order to bring cases.
  We too often were losing cases because we couldn't bring the officer 
to court. The officer needed to be out on the streets because of the 
shifts. Judges would dismiss cases because prosecutors were failing to 
put them together in time to meet the swift and speedy prosecution 
standards.
  Finally, we got people to understand that it makes a difference to 
have a police officer walking a beat. That is another problem that 
occurred in America for a long period of time. We put police officers 
in a car; they drove around; criminals could pretty well predict when 
the car was going to come through. The car created a barrier between 
the officer and the street, so to speak. People didn't build 
relationships. They didn't build relationships with good citizens in 
the community, and they also didn't build relationships with bad 
citizens from whom they often learned who may have done one thing or 
another against the law.
  Through awareness of that in 1994, we began an effort to put police 
officers back on the streets of America, to build those relationships, 
and to provide our departments with the indispensable foundation on 
which the life and economic development of a community exists. That is 
called the opposite of chaos. It is peace. That is why they are called 
peace officers.
  The fact is, we have been on a wonderful trend line, an extraordinary 
trend line, where crime has been going down. Most violent crime has 
been going down, although not all; there are a couple areas that have 
gone up in the last year. The fact is, the kind of threat the average 
citizen felt in their community has diminished. In community after 
community after community, all across this country, police chiefs, 
police officers, mayors, everybody involved in the effort to provide 
order, will share stories of the remarkable ways in which the community 
policing program has made a difference in the lives of our fellow 
citizens.
  It is extraordinary to me that plans were laid in the original 
Republican budget to eliminate funding for this, one of the most 
successful programs that we have had.
  If you look at the city of Boston in the 1990s, we had a gang 
epidemic. There was a surge in youth violence. The Boston Police 
Department responded by developing a very innovative youth violence 
task force, an aggressive intervention strategy, and a program to 
control trafficking of firearms. However, much depended on the $750,000 
COPS anti-gang initiative grant. That has become a model program in the 
country. Countless police chiefs and others have used that program as a 
way of instituting a similar effort in their own cities.
  Every year since 1993, the number of juveniles killed by guns has 
decreased, a 60-percent decrease from 1990 to 1998. From July 1995 to 
December 1997 not one youth was killed with a firearm.
  The rate of violent crime involving a firearm has decreased 43 
percent since 1995. Property crime has dropped to its lowest levels 
since the 1960s and has been cut in half since 1990. House break-ins 
and car thefts have also hit a 35-year low.
  The federal assistance through the COPS program has given local 
communities like Boston the tools to fight crime effectively. This 
makes our streets and schools safer, our homes

[[Page 17388]]

more secure and improves the quality of life for everyone. In 1997, a 
Boston Public Safety Survey found that more than three-quarters of the 
residents feel somewhat to very safe alone in their neighborhoods at 
night, an increase of close to 20 percent just since 1995. Feeling save 
to walk the streets is a right, not a privilege for those who can 
afford it. Every community deserves the type of security that Boston 
residents currently enjoy. The COPS program has played an important 
role in fostering that security.
  Listen to what Paul Evans, Commissioner of the Boston Police 
Department, has had to say. In a letter to me, which I will now read, 
Paul reminds us that

       Over the past five years, the COPS office has been a strong 
     and effective partner in our efforts in Boston, and in cities 
     across the country. COPS funds have supported the hiring of 
     109 new officers like Jamie Kenneally, who has quickly become 
     a community fixture, walking his beat and serving as a one-
     man-anti-crime unit on Centre Street in Jamaica Plain.

  Mr. President, other COPS initiatives have supported Boston's 
internationally recognized youth violence strategy, which yielded a 75-
percent decrease in youth homicides. Also, COPS supported the citywide 
Strategic Planning and Community Mobilization Project that brought 
together more than 400 police and community stakeholders to create 
partnerships for public safety that have been replicated in communities 
across the country.
  The effects of the COPS programs in Boston have been replicated 
across Massachusetts and across the nation. Here is a letter from 
Edward Davis, Superintendent of Police in Lowell, Massachusetts. In the 
letter, Superintendent Davis says the Lowell Police Department has seen 
a dramatic decrease in crime and the fear of crime over the past six 
years. Violent crimes have decreased more than 60 percent as a result 
of the hard work of police officers, citizens, and the support of the 
Federal Government.
  Paula Meara, Chief of Police of Springfield, Massachusetts believes 
that COPS funding has unquestionably improved the quality of life for 
Springfield residents. In 1997 and 1998, Homicides in Springfield have 
declined by 40 percent and serious crime has dropped by 12 percent. 
Chief Meara believes that any reduction in funding for the COPS program 
will have catastrophic results and will be detrimental to the quality 
of life for every resident in Springfield.
  The COPS program has been a demonstrated success in Massachusetts and 
across the nation. It deserves continued federal support. Adopting the 
Biden amendment is a good first step toward continuing federal 
assistance for local communities. However, there is much more that we 
need to do. First, we must find additional funds for the COPS program 
in conference to insure that communities that are currently plagued 
with crime and violence can fight back with a cop on the beat. Second, 
we must continue to work with local police departments to develop 
innovative community-based approaches to fighting crime. This approach 
will help allow evey community free itself of the crime and violence 
that lowers the quality of life and limits economic development. Mr. 
President, it is time we end the debate of whether to fund the COPS 
program, and move onto the far more important question of how to 
enlarge and expand this successsful program for the challenges before 
us today.
  I ask unanimous consent a series of letters from police chiefs with 
respect to that program be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Boston Police Department,

                                        Boston, MA, July 14, 1999.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing to express my urgent 
     opposition to efforts in the Senate to eliminate funding for 
     the COPS Office. Like you, I strongly support Senator Biden's 
     amendment to restore that funding.
       Over the past five years, the COPS Office has been a strong 
     and effective partner in our efforts in Boston, and in cities 
     across the country. COPS funds have supported the hiring of 
     109 new officers whom we could not otherwise have put to work 
     in Boston's neighorhoods, officers like Jamie Kenneally, who 
     has quickly become a community fixture, walking his beat and 
     serving as a one-man anti-crime unit on Centre Street in 
     Jamaica Plain.
       Other COPS initiatives have supported Boston's 
     internationally-recognized youth violence strategy, which 
     yielded a 75 percent decrease in youth homicides. Also, COPS 
     supported the New England Regional Community Policing 
     Institute, which is a training consortium led by the Boston 
     Police Department and that delivers state-of-the-art 
     community policing training across the region. As one of its 
     first initiatives in Boston, COPS supported our citywide 
     Strategic Planning and Community Mobilization Project, that 
     brought together over 400 police and community stakeholders 
     to create the partnerships for public safety that have been 
     replicated in communities across the country. COPS supports 
     our initiatives in reducing domestic violence and other key 
     areas of our mission.
       The COPS Office is a major success story from the 1994 
     Crime Act, which you were so pivotal in enacting. I add my 
     voice to what I know is a chorus of police executives who 
     want this important work to continue.
       Please let me know if there are other ways I can support 
     Senator Biden and you in your fight to save COPS.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul F. Evans,
     Police Commissioner.
                                  ____



                                     Lowell Police Department,

                                        Lowell, MD, July 15, 1999.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate,
     Boston, MA.
       Dear Senator Kerry: The Lowell Police Department (LPD) has 
     seen a dramatic decrease in crime and the fear of crime over 
     the past six years. Part I Crimes have decreased by over 60% 
     as a result of the hard work of police officers, citizens, 
     and the support of government officials. This support is most 
     evident by the resources provided by the U.S. Department of 
     Justice Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office.
       Since 1993, the COPS Office has provided well over 4 
     million dollars to the LPD for the hiring of sworn and 
     civilian personnel, as well as the implementation of 
     innovative problem-solving initiatives. Through the Universal 
     Hiring Program, Lowell has been able to hire 37 additional 
     police officers, and COPS More allowed for the redeployment 
     of over 30 officers into the community. The Advancing 
     Community Policing Initiative allowed for the development and 
     implementation of innovative training and management 
     initiatives. The Problem-Solving Partnerships grants support 
     youth and neighborhood challenges. Furthermore, the Community 
     Policing to Combat Domestic Violence grant supported efforts 
     targeted and addressing domestic violence citywide.
       Equally important is the impact that COPS Office resources 
     have had on law enforcement across the country. The COPS 
     Office has been instrumental in enhancing the profession of 
     policing, and challenging law enforcement to think and act in 
     a more strategic manner. Embedded in all of the COPS grant 
     programs, is an underlying theme of building and 
     strengthening community partnerships with public and private 
     organizations.
       It is without reservation that I support the continuing 
     efforts of the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office and 
     their state and local law enforcement partners. I would be 
     happy to provide further information from my agency as well 
     as from the citizens of Lowell, Massachusetts if necessary.
           Very truly yours,
                                             Edward F. Davis, III,
     Superintendent of Police.
                                  ____



                                  The City of Springfield, MA,

                                                    July 15, 1999.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: The Springfield Police Department is a 
     community oriented, full service, municipal Police 
     Department. Community Policing was initiated in a pilot area 
     of Springfield in 1993 and was expanded citywide thanks to 
     the assistance provided through funding by the Department of 
     Justice COPS Universal Hiring Grant Initiative. One hundred 
     twenty-eight (128) officers have been hired thanks to the 
     assistance of the Department of Justice and Federal Funding. 
     Nationwide studies proved that traditional law enforcement 
     strategies were insufficient and outdated when applied to 
     today's complex law enforcement issues. After initiating 
     community policing in 1993, the police department recognized 
     immediate positive results. It became clear that when 
     community police officers spent more time and focused more 
     attention on the issues, calls for return service diminished 
     substantially.
       Community Policing was implemented ``city-wide'' in 1995 
     after a successful trial period, which included several pilot 
     areas.

[[Page 17389]]

     The city was receiving high praise from residents for 
     Community Policing efforts but expansion was hampered due to 
     manpower constraints. The city was still recovering from 
     economic depression and officer lay-offs in 1988. Community 
     Policing in Springfield is both a philosophy and an 
     organizational strategy that promoted new partnerships 
     between people and their police. It is based on the premise 
     that both the police and the community must work together to 
     identify, prioritize and solve contemporary problems such as 
     drugs, fear of crime, social/physical disorder and overall 
     decay with the goal of improving the quality of life in our 
     city. Without sufficient officer staffing Springfield was 
     struggling to answer the constant need for immediate officer 
     response to critical incidents while at the same time 
     allowing officers the time necessary to commit to working 
     with the community. Federal COPS funding provided the funds 
     vital to hiring the essential additional officers to move 
     forward and expand Community Policing in Springfield.
       The City is organized into nine Community Policing Sectors. 
     Management and services have been decentralized by 
     transferring Captains out of headquarters into the sectors, 
     assisted by Lieutenants, Sergeants and Officers--all assigned 
     on a long term basis. Investigations have been organized to 
     maximize sector responsibility with investigators from all of 
     the Department's Bureaus assigned by Community Policing 
     Sector. Neighborhood based beat management teams and regular 
     community meetings comprise an essential component of this 
     department's policing initiatives. The Springfield Police 
     Department has worked continually toward enhancing its 
     services to the residents of our city through collaborations 
     with other services providers with the goal of meeting and 
     exceeding citizen expectations. The Department of Social 
     Services, Department of Youth Services, School Department, 
     Springfield Health and Human Services, Department of Code 
     Enforcement, District Attorney's Office, Hampden County 
     Sheriff's Department (Corrections), Juvenile and Adult 
     Probation Divisions, and Parole Department all work with our 
     Community Policing Officers and have representatives assigned 
     to Community Policing Sectors. Springfield is particularly 
     proud of its Youth Assessment Center--named after Captain 
     Joseph A. Budd, who commanded the Youth Aid Bureau and 
     championed youth causes for many years. The Center became 
     operational in 1997 and is among the first of its type in the 
     nation. Funding supplied through the COPS Universal Award 
     made this center possible. Any reduction in funding this 
     center, which has become a national model, would jeopardize 
     the health and welfare of our city's youth. It represents a 
     collaboration of police and other major agencies, working 
     together to better serve our city's children. Its primary 
     focuses are: Early Intervention, Youth Diversion, and 
     Prevention. Among the agencies that work with Youth Aid 
     personnel at the Center on a daily basis are: Springfield 
     School Department, District Attorney's Office, Department of 
     Youth Services, Department of Social Services, Department of 
     Youth Services, and the Center for Human Development (Project 
     Rebound). Children in need of services, or youths that 
     surface with law Enforcement Programs are brought to the 
     center and not to the police station. At the center, trained 
     investigators gather data relative to health, school and home 
     issues--relating to drugs, sexual abuse, and domestic 
     violence. If necessary, immediate and direct referral to the 
     appropriate agency for assistance is provided.
       COPS funding has provided officer staffing levels vital to 
     proactively target the issue of school violence. Springfield 
     has nineteen (19) officers and one Sergeant assigned full-
     time to patrol our Springfield's fifty-five (55) schools. 
     These officers work with school officials, and numerous other 
     service agencies to prevent incidents of violence. Student 
     Support Officers are specially trained in mediation 
     techniques and are a resource to school officials and 
     students.
       COPS funding has allowed us to develop many diverse 
     programs to improve the quality of life in our Community.
       Citizens Police Academy--Since 1996 we have held seven 
     academies with approximately 175 residents attending twelve 
     week interactive training sessions.
       COP SHOP--Based on the Citizen Police Academy but directed 
     at high school age youths who have shown an interest in Law 
     Enforcement.
       COPS AND KIDS--An after school program meeting three times 
     a week at our Mounted Patrol facility targeting youths at 
     risk, 12 to 14 years of age.
       COPS IN SHOPS--Undercover officers posing as liquor store 
     employees to target underage alcohol violations.
       Community Chaplains on Call Program--A multi denominational 
     volunteer group of clergy that respond to critical incidents 
     within the City of Springfield and surrounding communities.
       S.A.R.A Problem Solving Initiatives--Collaborative efforts 
     by police and other stakeholders to prioritize and combat 
     quality old life issues such as Open Drug Dealing, Auto 
     Theft, Vandalism, Graffiti, and Youth Violence.
       COPS Funding has unquestionably improved the quality of 
     life for Springfield residents. Statistics show hard evidence 
     that the Community Policing Initiatives financed by COPS 
     Funding continues to be our most successful efforts to date.
       From the period including 1995 to 1996 Springfield 
     experienced 33 homicides. From the period including 1997 to 
     1998 as Community Policing expanded Springfield experienced a 
     drastic reduction of homicides, with a total of 20. This is a 
     40% reduction over these two-year periods.
       For the first six months of 1999 Springfield experienced 
     one (1) homicide.
       From the period 1997 to 1998 Springfield experienced an 
     11.98% reduction in UCR Part 1 Index Crimes. This category 
     includes Rape, Robbery, Burglary, Aggravated Assault and Auto 
     Theft.
       For the same period Springfield experienced an 8% reduction 
     in all other crimes not categorized in UCR Part 1 Index 
     Crimes.
       COPS funding is essential to the continued success of the 
     Springfield Police Department's efforts to improve the 
     quality of life for our citizens. Community Policing has 
     become a way of life in the City of Springfield. Any 
     reduction in funding will have catastrophic results and will 
     directly effect public confidence in their Police Department 
     and will be detrimental to the quality of life for the 
     citizens of Springfield.
           Very truly yours,
                                                   Paula C. Meara.
                                                  Chief of Police.

  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership as 
well as for his courtesy.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Biden for his great 
leadership on this issue. I hope I am an original cosponsor, and, if 
not, I certainly ask unanimous consent to be named a cosponsor.
  I want to talk about a program that is extraordinarily important to 
the safety of communities. That's the COPS Program. In 1994, Congress 
enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This act 
established a program known today as the COPS Program. This program has 
had unparalleled success.
  The authority to hire officers under the COPS Program expires in 
fiscal year 2000. Although the President's Budget provided for an 
initiative that would allow a continuation of support for hiring 
police, the Senate Appropriations Committee markup does not include 
such funding.
  This is not the time to cut back on funding police programs for our 
communities. The COPS Program authorized the hiring of 100,000 police 
officers and allowed states and localities to concentrate those 
officers on community policing. Funds were used for purposes such as: 
Training law enforcement officers in crime prevention and community 
policing techniques; development of technologies that emphasize crime 
prevention; linking community organizations and residents with police; 
and developing innovative programs.
  In 1998, the COPS Program initiated the Safe Schools and Indian 
Country law enforcement improvements initiatives. The Safe Schools 
Initiative included $167.5 million for partnerships between law 
enforcement agencies and schools to improve safety in elementary and 
secondary schools and to hire school resource officers.
  Under the Indian country law enforcement improvement initiative 
funding was available for hiring uniformed officers and assisting with 
other law enforcement improvements on tribal lands.
  Under the COPS Program, the Youth Firearms Violence Initiative was 
developed to assist police departments in combating the rise of youth 
firearms violence.
  As a result of the additional police officers in the community and 
the innovative programs funded by the COPS programs, we have seen 
historic crime reductions over the last few years. Crime is at its 
lowest rate in 25 years and has declined for 6\1/2\ consecutive years.
  The COPS Program is strongly supported by every major law enforcement 
group. Why? Because it responds directly to their needs.
  I want to share with you a number of examples of how different 
communities in my home State of Minnesota have successful used COPS 
funding and how their communities have benefited. The Anoka Police 
Department has refined its junvenile conferencing program--a

[[Page 17390]]

program which essentially brings together youthful offenders with the 
victims of their offenses. The basic idea is that this confrontation 
will cause the young person to see the consequences of his/her actions 
and make it less likely to occur again. It also has eased the pressure 
on the court system.
  In short, Police Accountability Conferencing is a non-traditional way 
of dealing with juvenile offenders. Modeled after a program in 
Australia, it brings the victim, the offender and their relatives 
together with an officer, who serves as a mediator, to discuss the 
ramifications of the offender's actions and decide on a mutually 
agreeable form of punishment.
  This commitment to young people is a classic example of how COPS 
grants can be utilized effectively.
  In addition, Anoka has a COPS officer who is also used as a school 
liaison officer. During the summer, this officer works with the 
landlords association in dealing with landlord-tenant issues.
  Anoka Police Chief Ed Wilberg views the COPS Program as a very 
successful one--one which really does help to meet the needs of his 
community.
  In both the St. Paul and Minneapolis, the Police Departments have 
been able to free up more officers so that they can do proactive work. 
Because of the COPS Program their work is not limited to responding 
solely to 911 calls.
  For instance, Chief Robert Olson of the Minneapolis Police Department 
talks about being able to commit ``significant additional resources in 
both police officers and equipment'' to address the core cause of crime 
in Minneapolis. He reports that ``The catalyst for helping the city 
commit to those resources was the Federal COPS program.''
  Chief Olson further states that

       There is still a significant need for federal support of 
     community-oriented policing services . . . . Law enforcement 
     needs that federal support . . . and I hope that when these 
     issues are presented that you will consider a continuation of 
     the mission of the COPS Office in whatever form seems 
     appropriate.

  In St. Paul, this is what the Chief's office had to say:

       The COPS grants have allowed us to hire police officers, 
     increase efficiency through the use of technology, put 
     greater emphasis on our problem solving efforts and enhance 
     the linkage we have with our community. The COPS program is 
     one of the best things President Clinton and Congress has 
     done for law enforcement. We would like to see more funds for 
     technology and support to further enhance our efforts.

  In White Bear Lake, a rural community, COPS funding has enabled 
restructuring so that more officers are in the community. White Bear 
Lake has divided its community in 19 subcommunities with at least one 
officer assigned to each community. Quite simply, White Bear Lake 
jumped light years ahead because of the technology that the COPS grants 
allowed them to purchase--which has the direct result of police 
officers being in the community.
  In the Shakopee Police Department, the COPS Program has been a 
godsend to an agency its size. It has allowed the department to hire 
additional officers in a diverse community that is growing every 
rapidly.
  Within the last few months they were able to hire community service 
officers to provide services that ordinarily would have to have been 
performed by sworn officers. This means that additional sworn officers 
are freed up to do work in the community. Currently the Police 
Department is working to hire school resource officers. The school 
district has agreed to help with the cost. This would not be possible 
without COPS.
  Here, I say to Senator Biden, is the quote I have been saving for 
you.
  Police Chief Ken Froschheiser of Thief River Falls said that COPS 
``has been so successful that if the citizens heard that it was going 
to be pulled, we would be hung.'' He also said that he jokes with the 
school district that he really doesn't have two officers, that the 
school district has two employees.
  His school liaison officers are in the school 12 months of the year. 
They do things like bike patrols and help create block programs which 
allows his officers to be closer to the community, neighborhood by 
neighborhood. The COPS Program provided the resources to do the school 
work that he wanted to do. He also has noticed an increased 
collaboration with other city and county agencies, for example, the 
school district, social services and the court system.
  The point is simple: under a community policing philsophy, law 
enforcement agencies recognize the need for cooperation with the 
communities they serve. Each community has numerous resources that can 
be used with law enforcement to solve problems.
  The Upper Midwest Community Policing Institute, which is funded in 
part by COPS, is working in partnership with the Minneapolis Police 
Department to provide outreach and training to the large Somalian 
community in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood and the officers who 
serve them.
  In the near future, this Institute will be exploring community 
policing applications to the problem of domestic violence. Importantly, 
the Institute is working closely with a large number of Tribal Law 
Enforcement agencies to provide training and technical assistance. This 
work has included helping to facilitate the white Earth Tribe and 
Mahnomen County agreement to resolve jurisdictional issues. COPS 
allowed this to happen. This Institute is an important piece of the 
COPS picture. It exemplifies the success of a law enforcement approach 
that is tailored to community needs.
  The success of the COPS story goes on and on. COPS provided resources 
which allowed departments throughout Minnesota to upgrade technology 
and to redevelop the whole notion of community policing.
  At the national level: The United States Conference of Mayors states 
that the COPS Program has been critical in the significant reduction in 
crime and that the nation's mayors always cite the COPS Program ``as a 
working example of what can be accomplished when red-tape is reduced to 
a minimum in favor of results-oriented programming''. The nation's 
mayors urge reauthorization of the program.
  The COPS Program also is supported by the National Sheriffs' 
Association, The International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the 
National Association of Police Organizations, The Police Executive 
Research Forum, The National Troopers Coalition, The Major Cities 
Chiefs, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
  Mr. President, why would we eliminate such a successful program? This 
is a time to build on our successes. This country needs additional 
resources to enhance crime fighting efforts. We need better 
communications systems in more communities to deter criminals, and to 
improve the ability of different jurisdictions to interact. We need to 
provide more communities with state of the art investigative tools like 
DNA analysis. We need to be able to target crime hot spots by making 
resources such as crime mapping available to more jurisdictions. We 
need new community based programs to ensure the safety of our school 
children.
  The COPS amendment being offered today by Senators Biden and Schumer 
will enable us to continue the COPS Program which will expire next 
year. The amendment will support the hiring and training of up to 
50,000 more cops over 5 years. It will support new technology to fight 
crime. It will provide funding for community prosecutors. The amendment 
puts cops in schools and supports partnerships between schools, law 
enforcement and the community. Communities and their students feel 
particularly vulnerable in the aftermath of the Littleton tragedy. It 
is important to continue our support of the dialogue between schools, 
law enforcement and the community so that communities can continue to 
fashion solutions to the problem of school violence.
  This program has been a success over the last 5 years. It has 
benefited communities throughout this nation. It should be continued.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we prepare to agree to this amendment 
reauthorizing the COPS Program for an additional year, I wish to take a 
moment to recognize the work of the Senator

[[Page 17391]]

from Delaware on this issue. The senior Senator from Delaware has 
offered an amendment that is very important to the country. He also, 
earlier this year, offered an amendment to the juvenile justice bill to 
reauthorize this program. That effort, supported by everyone in the 
minority, was defeated.
  Fortunately, though, for the people of the State of Nevada and this 
country, we had the support of the police officers from all over the 
country, the district attorneys from all over the country, the sheriffs 
from all over the country. Law enforcement officers, officials, 
literally called upon us, their Senators, to express their overwhelming 
support for the reauthorization of this program. So I extend every bit 
of appreciation possible to the Senator from Delaware for his 
persistence and also for his ability to energize law enforcement 
officials in this country. It is because of their interest and their 
trust in the Senator from Delaware that we have reached this point.
  I have in my hand four pieces of paper filled with the names of 
cities and towns, Indian tribes, universities from all over the State 
of Nevada, that have received help from this program, from Bolder City 
in the far southern tip of Nevada to the Yomba Shoshone Tribe in the 
northern part of the State. They received grants of money and police 
officers to allow the State of Nevada to be a more peaceful place.
  Hundreds of police officers are now patroling the streets all over 
the State of Nevada as a result of the legislation that was previously 
passed. It is very important we move forward.
  I speak as someone who has been a police officer, someone who has 
been a prosecutor, someone who has defended people charged with crime. 
I am convinced there are many important ways to cut back on crime, but 
there is nothing more important than having a police officer seen on 
the street. A police officer who is known to be in the area certainly 
will deter crime.
  This program is good. We are fortunate we are now having another 
opportunity to make sure this program goes forward.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am happy today to support continued 
funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS program. 
During consideration of the Juvenile Justice Bill in May, I opposed 
Senator Biden's amendment which would have authorized the COPS Program 
for 5 more years. I took that position because I felt that Senator 
Biden's proposal, which would have cost taxpayers $7 billion, needed to 
be carefully scrutinized in the normal legislative process. His 
proposal would have more than doubled the current funding 
authorization, and did not address the serious problems that exist with 
the current program.
  Today, however, I am happy to support continued funding of the COPS 
Program for FY 2000. Local law enforcement officers from across 
Tennessee have contacted me to let me know of their support for this 
program. Tennessee has benefitted from almost $120 million in Federal 
funds since the COPS Program began. Police Chief Jamie Dotson of 
Chattanooga told me that the COPS Program has assisted him in hiring an 
additional 76 police officers. The police chiefs of Memphis, Nashville 
and Knoxville all support the program.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on reauthorization of 
the COPS Program. I want to ensure that we build flexibility into the 
system, so that communities may use the Federal funds to best suit 
their needs, be they more policemen in schools, purchase of new 
technology, bullet proof vests, or overtime payments to keep policemen 
on our streets fighting crime. Additionally, I want to ensure that we 
carefully scrutinize the program to eliminate waste of scarce taxpayer 
resources. I am grateful that my colleagues have been able to work out 
a compromise so we can continue to fund this program, and I am proud to 
continue my support.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud co-sponsor of 
the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Delaware, 
Senator Biden. Despite the proven track record of the Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program and widespread support from 
the law enforcement community, the current version of the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill almost completely eliminates this 
important program. Senator Biden's amendment, however, corrects this 
terrible flaw in the bill. It would preserve the Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services and fund the hiring of roughly 1,500 police 
officers through FY 2000.
  Since its inception in 1994, the COPS Program has provided an 
unprecedented level of resources to communities across the nation in 
the fight against crime. The COPS Program has awarded $6 billion to 
11,300 communities to fund the hiring of more than 100,000 police 
officers. The addition of 100,000 police officers represents a nearly 
20% increase in the number of officers on the streets. And more cops on 
the streets means lower crime. Crime is at its lowest rate in 25 years 
and has declined for seven consecutive years. The COPS Program has a 
lot to do with that happy statistic.
  What is community policing and how has it reduced crime? Community 
policing is a law enforcement strategy that emphasizes establishing 
community partnerships, putting more officers on the street, 
decentralizing command functions, and promoting innovative, community-
oriented strategies to prevent crime. With the recent wave of 
schoolhouse shootings like those that occurred in Littleton, Colorado 
and Jonesboro, Arkansas, there is a growing sense among Americans that 
we are no longer safe in our homes, in our schools, in our communities. 
One sure way to reduce crime and restore peace of mind is through 
community oriented policing. The COPS Program does just that.
  COPS has had a positive, and very tangible, impact on communities 
throughout the country, including in my home state of Wisconsin, by 
putting more police officers on our streets and making our citizens 
safer. In the state of Wisconsin alone, the COPS Program has funded the 
equivalent of over 1,100 new officers and contributed roughly $70 
million to communities to make it happen. The COPS Program has 
succeeded because it helps individual officers to be a friendly and 
familiar presence in their communities. They are building relationships 
with people from house to house, block to block, school to school. This 
community policing helps the police to do their job better, makes the 
neighborhoods and schools safer and, very importantly, gives residents 
peace of mind.
  The current Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, however, 
threatens the progress in community policing and the reduction of crime 
our nation has seen in recent years. First, it eliminates the federal 
funding for local law enforcement to hire additional, needed officers. 
Second, it eliminates the COPS office and transfers the administration 
of technology and school resource officer grants to the Office of 
Justice Programs. This is absurd and ignores the success of the COPS 
Program.
  As I travel through Wisconsin and talk to sheriffs, police chiefs and 
other law enforcement officers, I hear the same refrain, time after 
time: the COPS Program is vital to their work and has enabled them to 
get more officers out from behind their desks and onto the streets. I 
agree. The COPS Program has been a shining example of an effective 
partnership between local and Federal Governments. It provides federal 
assistance to meet local objectives. It does not interfere with local 
prerogatives. It does not impose mandates. The program provides funding 
to counties, towns and cities to enable communities to put more police 
on the street. Individual police and sheriff's departments have 
discretion over how those funds are used, because they know what 
problems their communities face and the places they need help most.
  Mr. President, zero funding for hiring officers means fewer cops on 
the streets. Shutting down the COPS office means local law enforcement 
will lose the ability to participate closely in determining what funds 
they receive and how they are used. Senator Biden's

[[Page 17392]]

amendment, however, would provide for continuing the much-lauded COPS 
Program to ensure that we have an additional roughly 1,500 police 
officers in our communities in Wisconsin and throughout the nation. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and 
continuing our drive to put more police officers on the streets and to 
reduce crime in our communities.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Chairman, Senator 
Gregg, and the Ranking Member, Senator Hollings, for accepting the one 
year extension of the Community Oriented Policing Services Program. 
This extension, being offered by Senator Biden, with my support, will 
allow communities in Maine and across the country, to continue 
receiving assistance from this very successful program.
  The COPS program was created in 1994, when President Clinton signed 
into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Not only 
does it provide grants that help communities hire additional police 
officers to help with the war on crime, the COPS Program also provides 
funds to acquire new technologies and equipment and provides police 
with opportunities to work with schools to address persistent school-
related crime problems. This program is so worthwhile that one of 
Maine's police chiefs said it is one of the most innovative programs he 
has seen in his thirty-five years in police work.
  Since its creation, COPS grants have been awarded to more than half 
the policing agencies in the country. In Maine there are an additional 
258 police officers in 90 city and county police forces as a result of 
the COPS Program. All across my state, from the Androscoggin County 
Sheriff's Department to the Town of Ft. Kent and from the Kennebunk 
Police Department to the Washington County Sheriff's Department, I am 
proud that the State of Maine has been able to utilize almost $18 
million in COPS program funding to hire these new police officers. 
These new police officers have helped reduce the amount of violent 
crime in Maine and across the country. In fact, since 1994, violent 
crime in America has fallen by 13%.
  By restoring $495 million for Fiscal Year 2000, the Community 
Oriented Policing Services program will be able to fund the deployment 
of almost 4,000 more police officers. These new additions to the front 
lines of the war on crime will allow our communities to continue to 
reduce violent crime in America.
  Again, Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Gregg's willingness to 
accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will make a few brief comments, and I am 
prepared to yield the remainder of my time. I thank my friend from New 
Hampshire for accepting the amendment.
  This was part of an original bill called the Biden crime bill at the 
time. At the time, when we introduced the notion of all these new cops 
partially being paid for by the Federal Government, I was told a couple 
of things. One, local authorities would not like it because they would 
have to come up with part of the funding. Two, it would be cumbersome 
to administer. Three, we would find ourselves in the position where it 
really wouldn't make much of an impact on the community.
  I suggest the reason I wrote the bill the way I did originally was to 
take into consideration all three of those concerns. First of all, 
everyone will know, from their home States, that there is no redtape in 
this program. The day after we passed the crime bill in 1994 in my 
office, I sat with the Attorney General of the United States and her 
staff, and, to her chagrin, I said we must get this application down to 
one single page. They looked at me as if to say: What do you mean, one 
single page? That is not possible for a Federal program which is going 
to cost $30 billion. But that is what it is. It is a page. That is the 
reason why there is an infinitesimally small portion of this COPS 
Program and the crime bill program money being spent for 
administration.
  The second thing was, I remember my friend from South Carolina 
telling me at the time: If you don't do this the right way, this is 
going to get hung up in every State. That is why we didn't send this 
money to Governors. The Presiding Officer is a former Governor. We love 
former Governors. But this doesn't go through State legislatures. The 
local police chief in Columbus, OH, does not have to convince anybody 
in your State capital they need more cops. They can go directly to the 
source.
  From a little town in Massillon, OH, they can go straight to the 
source. They do not have to go to the legislature; they can go straight 
downtown after their city council in Dover, DE, Smyrna, DE, Wilmington 
DE. It enabled local law enforcement agencies to determine their own 
needs and thereby eliminate the waste. By the way, I got in trouble 
with Governors for writing it that way, for not sending it through 
State legislative bodies.
  The third thing it does, and there was criticism of this when it was 
done, it says you do not get any money unless you have a certain kind 
of police department. What do you have to do? If you have 10 cops in 
your police department, you cannot fire two and apply for Federal money 
to hire them back. That is what was done under the LEAA, the Law 
Enforcement Assistance Act, when I first got here. This program said 
there was a maintenance of effort. We would help you get the 11th cop, 
but you couldn't cut it to 9 to go back to 10.
  We said: By the way, you have to have a community policing operation. 
Why is that important? Mayors and Governors do not want community 
policing. It is harder to do. It costs more money. The cops 
organizations--I love them all--didn't want it. It costs more money. If 
I am a cop in a tough district, I would rather be riding in a patrol 
car with another guy than I would be walking through by myself. So they 
did not want it. We said: No money unless this gets leveraged. If you 
have 10 cops and you want one of ours to raise your force to 11, all 11 
have to be community cops. That is the key.
  Why do I say this? If the Federal Government gets out of the business 
of helping here, it will not only be the loss of the money; I predict 
it will be the loss of the willingness to maintain community policing 
even though it works, even though every mayor knows it works and every 
county official knows it works. It is expensive and it is hard. Mark my 
words: The day the COPS Program ends, initially 5 percent, 10 percent 
of the communities in America will go away from community policing, and 
10 years from now we will be back to where we were.
  That leads to my second concluding point. People said back when the 
original bill was written: Biden, why are you only doing it for 5 
years? I said, one of two things are going to happen. Maybe at the end 
of the 5 years those of us who support this concept are going to be 
right; it is going to be proven, as in the old expression, the proof of 
the pudding is in the eating. At the end of the 5 years, the pudding 
either tastes good or it tastes bad. If it tastes bad, all the king's 
horses and all the king's men will not keep the COPS Program going 
because it will be branded for what it is, a waste of time and money. 
But if the pudding tastes good, all the king's horses and all the 
kings's men cannot stop it from being reauthorized for another 5 years.
  So far, the king's horses and king's men have stopped it from being 
authorized for another 5 years. It is a different issue. It is 
different than continuing it for this next year. But I want to say, I 
think the proof is in the eating. Our streets are safer. Go out and ask 
any of your mayors, any of your county executives, any of your town 
councils, any of your police departments. You come back and tell me 
anyone who said: Eliminate this program. They may have suggestions to 
make it better, and we should listen to them but not eliminate it.
  This leads me to my exact last point. I am a Democrat. I take great 
pride in the fact that I wrote this bill. Originally, it was the Biden 
bill. When it

[[Page 17393]]

passed and became law, I remember saying to President Clinton: Let's 
call it the Clinton bill.
  We lost the Congress that year, and he thought we lost the Congress 
in part because of the gun amendments. He said: Keep it the Biden bill.
  It started working really well, and now it is the Clinton bill. It is 
good it is the Clinton bill, but I want to make this the Republican 
bill, and I mean this sincerely. I want COPS to become like Social 
Security has become. Initially, Republicans hated Social Security and 
they were against it. Roosevelt came along, and Democrats supported it. 
Over the years, they have not only become politically committed, they 
are as committed as we are. They really understand how important it is, 
but for a long time it was not invented here.
  This COPS bill was bipartisan in its inception. When the first so-
called Biden crime bill that had this in it originally passed out of 
the Senate, it was called the Biden-Hatch crime bill until it got to 
the other side. Gingrich did not like the look of it politically, and 
even though it passed in the Senate with 97 votes originally--what 
passed the Senate originally was the same thing that ended up becoming 
law. It had 97 votes originally. It went over to the House of 
Representatives, and when it came back, I had to get seven Republicans 
to pass it. Only seven Republicans voted for it.
  From that point on, the bad news about the crime bill has been: We 
Democrats beat our chests about how we did it, and the Republicans did 
not, which is literally true. And the Republicans have said: My Lord, 
we can't continue to support a program from which the Democrats are 
getting such benefit. Let's end this.
  Let's go back and pretend this was part of the crime bill that passed 
out of here, which it did, with 97 votes. This is a bipartisan idea, 
and my plea is let continuing the program through its authorization 
period of the fiscal year 2000 be the first step, and the second step, 
that Republicans and Democrats join together and reauthorize for 
another 5 years this program and reauthorize for another 5 years, as my 
friend from New Hampshire has suggested, the trust fund.
  It is time--and I know this sounds ridiculous in this atmosphere--to 
take the politics out of this. This is working. There is enough room 
for all of us to claim credit. There is enough room for everybody to 
say, look, listen to what Ronald Reagan used to say when he first 
became President: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This ain't broke.
  Now let's put a Republican stamp on it and a Democratic stamp on it--
an American stamp--just as we do on Social Security. We will be doing 
the Nation a great favor, and maybe, just maybe, we will get back in 
the habit a little bit of cooperating as Democrats and Republicans.
  I thank my friend from New Hampshire for being willing to accept the 
amendment. I appreciate his accommodation in allowing us to speak to it 
in spite of that, and I truly look forward to the possibility that in 
the coming months we will be able to move beyond this and have a 
bipartisan--a Republican amendment. I will sign on to a Republican 
amendment reauthorizing this and call it the Republican crime bill. I 
do not care what we call it. I sincerely mean that. But let's keep a 
good thing going.
  I thank my friend, again, very much. I thank my friend from South 
Carolina who, when this bill was being written 5 years ago, was the 
major engine behind it. He was the one who allowed it to get through 
the committee in the first place.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may take on 
this. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Delaware and his 
commitment to this program.
  The committee's decision to end this program was based on a number of 
factors. The first factor was our allocation, which was so low. We had 
to simply apply resources where we thought they were most needed.
  The second factor was basically, in our opinion, the administration 
had taken the money to fund the COPS Program from some other very 
important law enforcement initiatives. For example, the administration 
did not fund the additional 1,000 Border Patrol which we think is 
critical. They did not fund the expansion of strike team efforts by the 
DEA. They did not fund the Boys and Girls Clubs initiatives. They did 
not fund the juvenile block grants. They did not fund the local law 
enforcement block grants. They did not fund the interagency drug 
enforcement grants. The money which came out of those accounts was 
essentially used to expand the COPS Program.
  The funding which this committee has made to the COPS Program has 
been extraordinary, and it has been strong over the years. In fact, the 
original program called for 100,000 cops. This committee has funded 
105,000 cops over the years and with our final funding we had in place.
  We also as a committee, with the support of the Senator from South 
Carolina, initiated aggressive programs of mentoring in schools using 
police officers. We think this is an important effort, and in our bill 
we expanded that amount. That is how we arrived at the number we did.
  I am willing to look at the extension of the COPS Program, but I 
think we have to look at it in the context of the resources available 
to us. When the administration sent up a budget as they sent up and 
essentially played games with the other law enforcement accounts, 
things which have to be done, which we knew had to be done and they 
knew had to be done, and then they underfunded those accounts, that is 
what created the basic problem in the initial bill.
  Working with the Senator from Delaware, we have been able to work out 
this resolution, which I think is a reasonable one and one with which I 
know the Senator from South Carolina agrees.
  If there is no further debate, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware has made an 
outstanding presentation. I join in the comments of my distinguished 
chairman. We are ready to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1285) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  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. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we take up the next amendment, let 
me just comment briefly on the amendment already agreed to, offered by 
the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I am very pleased 
with the action taken this afternoon by the Senate. The amendment 
certainly signals our continuing strong commitment to this innovative 
approach to crimefighting; that is, the COPS Program.
  The crime rate in the United States has gone down for 6 consecutive 
years--the longest period of decline in 25 years. And we received even 
more good news recently. This year's National Crime Victimization 
Survey reports that the number of Americans who were victims of violent 
crimes dropped 7 percent between 1997 and 1998.
  That is great news. Of course, no one claims we have won the war 
against crime, but we are certainly winning some important battles. The 
100,000 officers placed on the beat since the

[[Page 17394]]

COPS Program began in 1994 have been on the front lines of this vital 
effort.
  Why would we jeopardize that success? The additional officers put on 
the beat since 1994 have revolutionized community policing, and the 
COPS Program has helped foster an unprecedented crime-fighting 
partnership between communities and Federal, State and local law 
enforcement. Why should we let something that has proven to be so 
effective wither on the vine?
  We should instead build on the success of this program, which has 
been endorsed time and again by every major law enforcement 
organization.
  I have seen firsthand how valuable the COPS Program has been in 
communities in my home State. South Dakota's law enforcement officials 
are among the most well-trained and capable public servants in the 
country.
  South Dakota's crime rate is low, and its streets are safe, but, just 
as in more populated States, South Dakota families still worry about 
the safety of their streets and neighborhoods.
  In my State, and in rural America in general, the COPS Program can 
double the size of some police or sheriff's departments by providing 
funding to hire just one or two additional officers. Many of the small 
towns and counties in my State are faced with tight budgets, limiting 
the amount of resources they can devote to law enforcement personnel. 
By providing those resources, the COPS Program has had a profound 
impact on these communities.
  Law enforcement officers in South Dakota have described that impact 
to me.
  They have testified about how the COPS Program has helped them.
  Let me share just one of those stories, because I think that it 
provides a vivid example of how this program can truly make a 
difference.
  In the days immediately following the Littleton, CO, tragedy, parents 
throughout the Nation were terrified by a rash of bomb threats and a 
fear of ``copycat'' crimes. In South Dakota, we had to deal with over 
30 bomb scares.
  One of those threats was called into Tri-Valley, a school in a rural 
community outside of Sioux Falls, SD. Fortunately, Tri-Valley has a 
police officer, called a ``school resource'' officer. His name is 
Deputy Preston Evans, and his position is funded by a COPS grant.
  On the day of the bomb threat, as students were being evacuated from 
the school, a number of students came up to Deputy Evans and told him 
they knew who had made the threat. By the end of the day, two suspects 
had been arrested.
  Those students were able to confide in Deputy Evans for one reason 
they trusted him. And they were able to trust him because they knew 
him--they had a relationship with him. How many acts of violence or 
mischief are deterred in schools like Tri-Valley because the students 
can confide in such a person, who might not be there without the COPS 
Program?
  In a video conference yesterday, I spoke with some of the law 
enforcement leaders in South Dakota--Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike 
Milstead and Sioux Falls Police Chief Clark Quiring, and many others. 
They told me how the COPS Program has provided them the flexibility to 
increase their presence in schools.
  They mentioned how important it is for students to feel secure. As 
Sheriff Milstead so eloquently noted, ``there is not a bigger barrier 
to learning--than fear.''
  For his generation, the greatest fear was going home that afternoon 
with a bloody nose, he told us.
  Littleton reminds us that kids today have a lot more to worry about 
than just a fist-fight with a school-yard bully.
  But thanks to the COPS Program, children today have someone they can 
turn to.
  Dr. Bill Smith, the Instructional Support Services Director for the 
Sioux Falls School District, joined the law enforcement leaders in 
yesterday's video conference and told me that we now have evidence that 
officers in schools are welcome and helpful.
  When students throughout the Sioux Falls district were asked in a 
year-end survey whom they would go to if they had a problem, 44 percent 
said they would confide in their school resource officer before anyone 
else.
  That is a remarkable statistic:
  44 percent of the students said they would go to their school 
resource officer before they would turn to their teacher or principal. 
I can think of no more compelling evidence of how this program can make 
a real difference than that.
  Today, the Senate will help ensure that the COPS Program, and 
officers like Deputy Evans, will continue to make a difference--in our 
schools, on our streets, and in our neighborhoods.
  The action taken by the Senate just now is a tribute to the men and 
women across the country who risk their lives every day to make our 
communities safer.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, one of the important items contained in 
the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill is the appropriation for 
the Census Bureau.
  I think we all agree, a fair and accurate census is a fundamental 
part of our representative democracy and good government. As required 
by the Constitution, census results will determine how many members of 
the House of Representatives will come from each of the states. Those 
results will also determine how many federal dollars, funding a wide 
array of important programs, will return back to the state. We're 
talking about over $180 billion that will go to state and local 
governments and the distribution of additional billions in state funds. 
This same data is a vital component in determining where to build 
roads, hospitals, schools; even your local Wal-Mart or McDonald's 
location is based on this same information.
  The Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will near 266 
million in 2000. Cost estimates for administering Census 2000 were 
projected to be anywhere between $4 and $4.8 billion. Those projections 
were based on the assumption that ``sampling'' would be used to provide 
the fairest and most accurate count to date.
  The U.S. Supreme Court, however, this last year ruled by a narrow 5-4 
majority that the use of sampling was prohibited by law for the purpose 
of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Since the Court 
decided the case on statutory grounds, it found no need to decide 
whether the Constitution also barred the use of modern statistical 
methods for purposes of congressional apportionment. The Court went on 
to affirm that the law requires the Secretary of Commerce to use modern 
statistical methods, where feasible, for all other purposes.
  As a result of the Court's decision, the Administration is required, 
if feasible, to release two sets of population figures in 2001: one set 
of adjusted, unsampled numbers to be used for apportioning seats to the 
States, and a second set of adjusted or sampled, numbers to be used for 
all other purposes. The Court's decision has added the potential of 
$1.7 billion to the cost of the census. These funds will be used to 
hire census takers to handle the 50% increase in the number of 
households that must be visited.
  This includes $954 million for non-response follow-up. To get 
responses from all households that don't answer the mail survey, the 
Census Bureau will hire more enumerators and will expand follow-up to 
any unprecedented 10 weeks. Training will be increased to sustain 
quality with a larger workforce that will total over 800,000 employees.
  The Census Bureau will need an additional $268 million for data 
collection infrastructure, $229 million for coverage improvement 
efforts, and $219 million for a variety of data collection operations, 
things like rural area data collection, the ``Be Counted Program,'' 
enumeration of soup kitchens, shelters, and redeliveries.
  Every single dollar the Administration is asking for is necessary. 
Without

[[Page 17395]]

it, we will have a highly inaccurate census count. I believe we're on 
the path to another census nightmare similar to the 1990 experience. 
Nationwide, we missed 8.4 million people, mostly inner city and shanty 
town minorities; they double counted 4.4 million Americans, most of 
whom were white college students. My home State of Illinois suffered 
the eighth highest undercount in 1990; in the city of Chicago alone, 
they somehow didn't count 2.4 percent of the population. If you said 
they counted 97.6 percent of the population, it sounds good. But 
missing 2.4 percent is crucial. That's an astonishing figure 
considering the national average for undercount hovers around 1.6 
percent. That may not sound like a lot but that 0.8 percent 
differentiation equals almost 70,000 people. The city of Chicago 
estimates that the undercount was significantly higher: maybe as much 
as 250,000 people. The Census Bureau missed 114,000 folks for the whole 
state.
  What does that mean for my constituents back home in Illinois? The 
city of Chicago did a study last year and, if you follow the premise 
that the Bureau missed 68,000 people, estimated revenue loss for the 
city of Chicago would have totaled just under $100 million. If you 
follow the 250,000 undercount figure, the city of Chicago would have 
lost over $327 million. Let me give some figures that show why we're 
trying to raise awareness about this topic.
  Head Start in the city of Chicago, a program to provide early 
education for kids, lost over $28 million because of the census 
undercount. The Older Americans Act for senior citizens lost over $5 
million. WIC funds, nutrition funds for children, lost over $2.5 
million. Child care funding, we lost over $3 million. This is no small 
affair. We have to remedy the situation.
  I have a letter, dated May 7, 1997, from my colleagues Senator Lott, 
Senator Nickles, then-Speaker Gingrich, and House Majority Leader 
Armey. In this letter, the Republican leadership in both Houses state:

       We are firmly committed to working with the House and 
     Senate Budget Committees and Appropriations Committees to 
     provide a level of funding sufficient to perform the entire 
     range of constitutional census activities, with a particular 
     emphasis on accurately enumerating all groups that had 
     historically been undercounted.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1997.
     Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche,
     Director, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Riche: We are writing about one of the most 
     critical constitutional functions our government performs: 
     the decennial census. Based on recent media reports, we are 
     concerned that a misunderstanding of congressional priorities 
     is driving the Census Bureau's plans for the 2000 census. 
     Consequently, we fear that the Bureau is on the verge of 
     formalizing plans that do not reflect the House and Senate's 
     goal to perform the most accurate census possible that is 
     consistent with the Constitution. We would like to take this 
     opportunity to clarify the three main principles that 
     comprise the congressional mandate for Census 2000 and which 
     should guide the actions of both Congress and the Bureau as 
     you finalize census preparations in coming months.


                           increased accuracy

       Accuracy and completeness are absolutely essential if the 
     census is to provide the reliable data necessary to support 
     the business of government. Despite criticism, the 1990 
     census was the most accurate in history. Still, we expect to 
     improve on its success in 2000. To reach the level of 
     accuracy we expect, to ensure that communities that have been 
     undercounted in the past are fully and accurately counted in 
     the future, we must physically count each and every American.
       We cannot rely on statistical schemes that compromise 
     accuracy for the sake of economy. Despite the Bureau's 
     insistence that statistical estimation is more accurate than 
     actually counting Americans, the fact remains that if 
     statistical adjustment had been allowed in 1990, Pennsylvania 
     would have erroneously lost a congressional seat to 
     California. Voters should not be disenfranchised through the 
     use of statistical guessing.
       Census data must also be as valid at the census tract and 
     block level as they are at the state and national levels. 
     Under sampling, as the area gets smaller, the margin of error 
     grows wider. Individuals who rely on accurate census data for 
     reapportionment will receive census counts with a range of 
     possible numbers to choose from in drawing lines for 
     congressional, state and local elections. The result will be 
     chaos in government, uncertainty for voters, lawsuits lasting 
     for the better part of a decade, and worst of all, the 
     further erosion of our citizens' confidence in their 
     government's ability to do its job and do it right.


                           constitutionality

       Equally important is the constitutionality of Census 
     methodology. Taxpayers are investing a minimum of $4.2 
     billion to conduct Census 2000. We must protect their 
     investment by using only methods that are clearly and 
     undisputably allowed by the Constitution. If the Census is 
     conducted with methods that are later ruled unconstitutional, 
     taxpayers will not only have lost their original investment 
     in Census 2000, but will likely be asked to spend an 
     additional $6 billion or $7 billion to do the entire census 
     over again.
       Legal experts who testified recently before the Senate 
     Governmental Affairs Committee agreed that it would be 
     calamitous if the Supreme Court were to declare Census 2000 
     unconstitutional. The Court has not addressed the 
     constitutionality of statistical sampling in the Census, 
     however the Constitution clearly states that the Census 
     should be an ``actual Enumeration'' of the population, and 
     Title 13 U.S.C., Section 195 states that sampling cannot be 
     used for purposes of the apportionment of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives. We strongly believe that the Bureau's 
     proposed use of statistical sampling exposes taxpayers to the 
     unacceptable risk of an invalid and unconstitutional census.


     allocation of sufficient resources to conduct an accurate and 
                         constitutional census

       Recent news reports have quoted you and other Census Bureau 
     officials as citing a congressional mandate to spend less 
     money in the 2000 Census. While we certainly seek to promote 
     economy and efficiency in all aspects of government, the 
     constitutional requirements governing the census leave us no 
     choice when it comes to cutting corners in order to save 
     money; we cannot do it. On the contrary, the census must be 
     funded at levels necessary to comply explicitly with the 
     Constitution.
       We are firmly committed to working with the House and 
     Senate Budget Committees and Appropriations Committees to 
     provide a level of funding that is sufficient to perform the 
     entire range of constitutional census activities, with a 
     particular emphasis on accurately enumerating all groups that 
     have historically been undercounted. Towards this end we are 
     eager to see aggressive and innovative promotion and outreach 
     campaigns in hard-to-count communities, the hiring of 
     enumerators within those localities, and maximizing Census 
     employment opportunities for individuals seeking to make the 
     transition from welfare to work.
       We look forward to working with you on these and other 
     issues to ensure that the 2000 decennial Census is the most 
     accurate and Constitutionally sound census ever conducted.
           Sincerely,
     Newt Gingrich,
                                             Speaker of the House.
     Richard K. Armey,
       House Majority Leader.
     Trent Lott,
       Senate Majority Leader.
     Don Nickles,
       Senate Assistant Majority Leader.

  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Let me wrap up by saying that our goal is the most accurate census 
possible. The census has a real impact on the lives of real people. We 
have to do everything for a fair, accurate, and complete count.
  It is my understanding that my colleagues, Senators Gregg and 
Hollings, the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, will hold a hearing in the 
very near future on this issue of underfunding. I look forward to the 
resolution of this important issue.
  I have spoken with the White House as well. They assure me that this 
issue will be resolved, and we won't repeat the disastrous census 
undercount of 1990 in the year 2000.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was going to send an amendment to the 
desk. Might I ask my colleague from Indiana--I would like to hold my 
position on the floor, but I saw him--did he come to the floor with the 
intention of

[[Page 17396]]

speaking or introducing an amendment?
  Mr. LUGAR. If I may respond to my distinguished colleague, I came to 
the floor to offer an amendment to the bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if Senator Lugar came with the 
intention of offering the amendment, I was just trying to help Senator 
Gregg and Senator Hollings move this along.
  So might I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow Senator 
Lugar with the next amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think that makes a great deal of sense 
since we may be able to work something out on the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1289

(Purpose: To appropriate funds for the National Endowment for Democracy 
   and to offset such appropriations with a reduction in the Capital 
                            Investment Fund)

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

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, Mr. Mack, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Lieberman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1289.
       On page 78, between lines 8 and 0, inset the following:


                    NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY

       For grants by the Department of State to the National 
     Endowment for democracy as authorized by the National 
     Endowment for Democracy Act, $30,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That, in lieu of the dollar amount 
     specified under the heading ``CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUND'' in 
     this Act, the dollar amount under that heading shall be 
     considered to be $50,000,000.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to state the purpose of my 
amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to restore funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy. I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Graham and Senator Mack, who serve with me as members of the Board of 
Advisors for the National Endowment for Democracy. We are proposing 
funding the NED at $30 million, which is $2 million below the 
President's request and $1 million less than this year's funding level. 
It is also $1 million below the authorization level that has already 
been approved by the Senate.
  Our amendment proposes to shift $30 million from the Capital 
Investment Fund in the State Department title of the bill. I regret 
very much having to propose this shift because I, like the chairman of 
the subcommittee, believe the Capital Investment Fund is important to 
the effective operation of the Department of State and that the account 
is underfunded. But if we are successful in making the offset, I will 
work with the chairman and others to try to help find the moneys to 
help restore that funding to the Capital Investment Fund.
  The problem the subcommittee faced was a serious problem. There is 
simply inadequate funding in the 150 function of the International 
Affairs Account. That scarcity of funds forced difficult choices about 
priorities and required much give and take. In my judgment, the 
National Endowment for Democracy must be a high priority. There is no 
funding for the National Endowment in the bill before us. That is why 
we are compelled to propose the amendment I have just introduced.
  The reason for proposing the amendment is that the appropriations 
bill provided no funds--none at all--for the National Endowment. The 
Endowment did not even merit a mention in the bill; it is completely 
ignored. This zero-funding decision was made even though the Senate 
approved a straight-line funding level of $31 million in the State 
Department authorization bill, which we considered earlier this year, 
and even though successive administrations and successive Congresses 
have supported full, or near full, funding for the NED year after year.
  It is a unique phenomenon perhaps that the NED has enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support since 1983 when it was created by the Reagan 
administration. The NED has consistently gained the support of both 
Republican and Democratic administrations since then and of every 
Republican and Democratic Congress over the past 15 years. But not in 
this bill.
  The committee report accompanying the bill does recommend that funds 
for the NED be found among other divergent State Department accounts. 
This simply is not a good idea. Funding directly from the State 
Department would make the NED a grantee of the State Department and 
make it an arm of the Department. This would eliminate NED's line item, 
destroy its independence, and undermine its ability to gain access to 
grassroots organizations fighting for freedom and democracy in other 
countries all over this world--the very heart of NED's effectiveness.
  For this reason, former Secretaries of State have written of the 
importance of retaining the independence of the NED in a 1995 letter. 
They wrote:

       We consider the nongovernmental character of the NED even 
     more relevant today than it was at NED's founding twelve 
     years ago.

  NED's effectiveness comes in good part because it has an independent 
status, functions as a nongovernmental organization, and has a board 
that operates as an independent board of advisers. We have faced and 
confronted challenges to the NED numerous times in the past. The Senate 
has debated funding for the NED six times since 1993. Two years ago, we 
faced a comparable effort to slice and dice the NED. I proposed an 
amendment at that time to restore funding, and it was approved by the 
Senate by a vote of 73-27. A few weeks ago, in another challenge to 
NED, this time proposing a different manner by which NED allocates its 
internal grant-making funds among the four core institutes; the 
amendment was defeated by an almost identical vote of 73-26. That has 
been the pattern, fortunately, over the years.
  Let me just say I am sympathetic to the extraordinary difficulty 
facing the managers of the bill. There are so many critical issues in 
the various titles of the appropriations measure, and the NED is a very 
small item by comparison. But this is just the point. The NED has been 
a very cost-effective vehicle for promoting democracy, human rights, 
and civic society around the world. Given its presence in some 90 
countries, many on the threshold of democratic breakthroughs and others 
struggling with the transition to a more open society, NED's relatively 
small funding level is a genuine bargain. It is an exceptional 
investment in security for the United States of America.
  We often speak in broad generalities about promoting democracy, 
expanding democratic values, and promoting human rights around the 
world. The point that must be made is that doing so is very much in our 
national interest. These are not whimsical ideas. Securing strong 
democracies should be one of the most effective means of combating and 
deterring the spread of terrorism, coping with the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, promoting market economic practices and 
principles and creating opportunities to expand our markets, supporting 
fair labor practices, and forestalling the destabilizing effects 
stemming from refugee flows.
  None of these goals comes easily, and, as a Nation, we have decided 
it is in our national interest to encourage and to assist those in 
other countries who share the same ideals as we do in the United 
States. The NED is a key instrument in achieving these democratic goals 
and values.
  Over the past 15 years, the NED and its four core institutes have 
worked openly with willing counterparts in other countries to spread 
the ethos of democracy around the world. The four core institutes 
working with the NED itself are each affiliated with domestic American 
institutions. They are: A, the International Republican Institute, the 
IRI, and B, the National Democratic Institute, the NDI, which help 
build political parties, help to ensure free and fair elections, and 
strengthen governing institutions and civic society. They are loosely 
affiliated with

[[Page 17397]]

the Republican and Democratic Parties. Then, C, the Center for 
International Private Enterprise, CIPE, which promotes the growth of 
private enterprise in a democratic process, is affiliated with the 
Chamber of Commerce, and (d) the American Center for International 
Labor Solidarity, which has links to AFL-CIO and supports the 
development of independent trade unions. The Solidarity Movement in 
Poland was an early grantee, for example. The NED itself funds 
grassroots organizations that promote independent media, human rights, 
civic education and the rule of law in other countries.
  Testimonials on behalf of the NED have poured in from former 
Presidents, former Secretaries of State and former national security 
advisors, from grantees and non-grantees alike. These testimonials 
represent a veritable Who's Who in the world movements for democracy 
and human rights. These names include His Holiness the Dalai Lama; 
Harry Wu, the Human Rights Activist; Elena Bonner, Russia civil rights 
advocate; Clement Nwankwo, Chairman of the Transition Monitoring Group 
in Nigeria; Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic; Lech Walesa, 
leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland; and countless others from 
some 80 to 90 countries in every region of the world.
  Mr. President, I had hoped to avoid a debate on this issue this year. 
I had hoped that some agreement or arrangement could be made so that we 
could move ahead without delaying this appropriation bill. That 
certainly has been my intent. I regret that this has not been possible.
  The amendment is now before the Senate.
  I simply say that in the early 1980's when clearly it was the intent 
of the United States to push for democracy and human rights that the 
means of doing that were not at all clear to President Reagan and our 
Secretary of State. As a matter of fact, many felt it was inappropriate 
that the President and the Secretary of State sought to intervene in 
the affairs of other countries around the world suggesting changes of 
government, although this is clearly what we wanted to see.
  The changes in Eastern Europe could not have occurred without Lech 
Walesa, and Lech Walesa's movement which were heartily adopted by the 
AFL-CIO of this country. Through informal but very effective means of 
finance and organization, that fledgling labor movement in Poland was 
given not only strength but legitimacy throughout the world as a 
democratic movement of change, an alternative to a government which at 
the time seemed very solid.
  At the same time, from my own recollection and experience, I recall 
the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church in Central America and in the 
Philippines, and of American businesses who were farsighted and who 
understood the interests of our country laying freedom for people and 
democracy in contract law and the rule of law--the same principles we 
debate now with regard to Russia, as we have worked with Russians.
  How do you establish these situations, and do so without violation of 
diplomatic principles? Because our Nation, our President, our Secretary 
of State, must deal with leaders as they are constituted now and with 
their foreign ministers and defense ministers.
  But a very unique organization came from these considerations. It was 
called the National Endowment for Democracy.
  It included Republicans, Democrats, labor officials, Chamber of 
Commerce people, and a check and balance so that our own American view 
had four dimensions. This was not ideological, not official, but arose 
from the best grassroots leadership of this country. And it was 
effective.
  The changes in the world we now take for granted--the celebration we 
had at the 50th anniversary of NATO, the accession of Poland, Hungary 
and the Czech Republic into NATO--we take for granted that democracy 
there came forward.
  The point I am making is that it did not come forward because our 
State Department advocated that and brought it about, although clearly 
they support the shift to democratic systems. There was no official 
governmental way of bringing about those responses, which require 
money, fledgling newspapers, grassroots organizations, a how you print 
ballots, and how you register voters. All the nitty-gritty of politics 
we take for granted, but which could not be taken for granted in those 
countries which had not enjoyed those options.
  The issue before the Senate, very frankly, is that some Members I 
suspect may have become weary of the democracy business. They may think 
that was important then and this is now.
  I would just suggest that at the NED board meetings which I attend 
regularly there are routinely 80 to 100 proposals in which the National 
Endowment for Democracy and its core groups debate on these principles. 
We take seriously the idea of democracy and human rights. We think that 
is still a very important subject in this world. This is not routine. 
It is not freely dismissed as something that was lost in the budget. It 
was not mentioned, but the State Department might find if it came to 
their attention.
  We believe that the statement by the Senate ought to be clear--that 
we stand for democracy and the National Endowment for Democracy is a 
very good way to achieve democracy, and to do so year by year in a 
systematic and effective way.
  I point out that it is important, I suppose, to have this debate each 
year as a wake-up call. There may come a time when we become so blase 
and so routine about our functions that we forget human rights. But I 
hope that will never be the case.
  I suspect that those who are still struggling in parts of 
southeastern Europe--certainly in many Asian countries--those who are 
considering democracy in China, those in Latin America and Africa and 
those who are still trying to make it work out in various provinces of 
Russia welcome our help. They welcome labor leaders and business 
leaders from this country. They welcome Senators like John McCain, who 
heads up the Republican Institute; or Orrin Hatch, who was there at the 
beginning of the National Endowment.
  Senator Connie Mack of Florida, one of our board members now, and 
Senator Bob Graham of Florida, one of our board members now, have both 
been so effective in Latin America and Central America, and not just in 
the 1980's when we were all going down for inspection of elections, 
trying to help people find out how to campaign, and how to count votes 
successfully.
  A lot of that heavy lifting still needs to be done.
  Although this is a debate that I wish did not occur annually, but so 
be it. It is a time really for Senators to stand up and be counted on 
whether they feel passionately, as I do, and I think many of us do, 
about democracy and human rights and what we can do about it 
effectively.
  I am simply making the point that the State Department cannot do that 
by force. We as American citizens working through grassroots 
organizations and through informal means can get the money and the 
organization to make a difference, which ultimately our President can 
recognize and our Secretary of State can bless.
  I point out, parenthetically, that the incumbent Secretary of State, 
Madeleine Albright, has served on the Board of the National Endowment 
for a number of years as has Zbigniew Brzezinski, as distinguished 
members of the Democratic Party. We now have Paul Wolfowitz, a 
distinguished American diplomat and scholar, as one of the Republicans, 
serving on the board.
  This has been a case of people giving of their time and their 
substance in private life even as they go back and forth into the 
public sector and serve our country in that way.
  I finally make the point that we are indebted to excellent editorials 
that appear in major newspapers in the last few days.
  I simply quote a sentence from the New York Times editorial of 
yesterday in which they call for a vote for democracy abroad, a leading 
editorial. They say:


[[Page 17398]]

       It is hard to think of a dictatorship whose opponents have 
     not benefited from the endowment.

  That I think is an important point.
  As you name the dictatorships of this world, they knew what hit them. 
In most cases it was the Endowment for Democracy and its advocates, and 
its supporters that made the difference.
  There may be all sorts of theories why these governments rose and 
fell. But I suggest that those of us who suggest it through the ballot 
box initiative really had to have a horse to ride on, and the means at 
least of making those alternatives effective.
  I cite, for example, the current discussion in Serbia where many 
persons believe--starting with our President--that President Milosevic 
would not be a suitable candidate for reelection or for a continuation. 
But the press keeps pointing out, What are the alternatives? How do 
habits change, if it is to occur in a democratic way?
  Where are the fair procedures? In fact, where has the United States 
been in terms of actively boosting those who wanted freedom, who wanted 
a different kind of Serbia, who espouse those values in this country 
but had no effective vehicle?
  Those are the missions that lie ahead. I hope we will be worthy of 
the task. I advocate the adoption of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to support restoring 
funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and commend Senator 
Lugar for offering this amendment. As reported from the Appropriations 
Committee, the National Endowment would receive zero funding for fiscal 
year 2000 with the assumption that the Department of State would 
provide money from its democracy and human rights accounts.
  Since its inception in 1983, NED has sought to maintain an 
ideological balance, with a bipartisan, multisectoral core structure, 
as well as a bipartisan board. Its status of being simultaneously 
public and private has provided insulation from shifts and tides in 
changing administrations, allowing NED to focus on long-term democracy 
development. This independent role would be compromised if NED were 
subjected to State Department control.
  For almost 16 years, NED has been instrumental in building the 
foundations of democracy in over 80 countries, including peaceful 
transitions in Poland, Chile, and South Africa. Today NED continues to 
support a diverse portfolio of democracy building initiatives. In the 
Sudan, NED funds support human rights monitoring and reporting. In the 
Newly Independent States (NIS) and in Russia, NED has been supporting 
anti-corruption efforts, market-based reforms, independent media, and 
civic education. These programs lie in the long term interest of the 
U.S. because they will help to promote stability in a region plagued by 
instability. They will help these countries to emerge from the mire of 
communism.
  NED programs are also important in the People's Republic of China. 
Mr. President, I think we are all aware of the egregious human rights 
abuses perpetrated by the authoritarian government in China. The 
insecure government controls pastors and church members through state 
apparatus, imprisons prodemocracy advocates for their activities, and 
suppresses the truth through propaganda instead of allowing open media. 
Thousands of political prisoners languish in prison, many sentenced 
after unfair trials, others without any trial whatsoever.
  Under the totalitarian regime in China, the political system is a 
sealed door with no clear signs of opening. Many in the United States 
have placed their faith in economic progress to produce some sort of 
eventual political change in China. I do not believe that we can afford 
to make such a dangerous assumption. Even as the Chinese people suffer, 
so too will the advocates of ``trade at all costs'' under the current 
political system, because of the absence of the rule of law. When 
trying to conduct business in China, American companies must deal with 
bureaucrats rather than regulations, evasions rather than enforcement, 
and convolution rather than competition--because there is no judicious 
rule of law.
  We all want to see democracy in China. But we cannot assume that it 
will happen by itself. Instead, we must take steps to foster democracy. 
That is exactly what NED is about. NED funds over twenty programs to 
promote human rights and democracy in China.
  With money from NED, the International Republican Institute supports 
electoral and legal reform.
  The National Democratic Institute monitors civil and political 
liberties in Hong Kong following its transfer to China.
  The Laogai Research Foundation, run by former dissident and prisoner 
Harry Wu, conducts in-depth research into China's forced labor prison 
camps.
  Another NED grantee is run by chairman Lie Qing, who spent eleven 
years in prison for his involvement in the Democracy Wall movement. 
This organization has been invaluable in monitoring human rights 
conditions in China and has been helping victims' families bring 
criminal charges against Chinese leaders responsible for the 1989 
Tiananmen killings.
  NED also supports VIP Reference, an organization that has taken 
advantage of the Internet to promote the free flow of information in 
China--news that has not been filtered or altered by the Chinese 
government. Besides opening this conduit to freedom, NED also supports 
research and publications on democracy and constitutionalism, symposia 
on private enterprise and market economics, and publications relevant 
to Tibet.
  Mr. President, these organizations are not rich by any means. In many 
cases, their staff works on a volunteer basis, out of their conviction 
to see freedom in China. They rely on funding from NED to stay in 
operation because other sources of funding from Hong Kong and Taiwan 
are scarce. Those potential sources fear offending China. Private 
businesses often will not fund these groups because they consider it 
too great a risk in light of their business interests in China. Only 
Congress has remained committed to funding these advocates of 
democracy. Without NED funding, we will cripple these programs and 
remove a key fulcrum in the push for democracy in China.
  Democracy building is not a quick fix for totalitarianism, nor will 
it produce instant change. But in the long run, these programs will 
produce a result worth far more than they cost today.
  I commend Senator Lugar for taking this leadership role, for offering 
this amendment. I believe it is critically important we support and 
pass this amendment, not just for China but for advocates of democracy 
all over this world.
  I urge my colleagues to support a restoration in the National 
Endowment for Democracy's funding for fiscal year 2000.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have all heard the expression stand 
and be counted for democracy.
  Come on, give me a break. No one really thinks a Senator obviously 
elected to office is against democracy. No one in his right mind could 
think that the Department of State is against democracy and is 
incapable.
  What we have is a deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 
at this particular moment we are spending over $100 billion more than 
we are taking in this year. I didn't know this was coming up, but since 
I get questioned about there being no surplus for the year 1999, the 
Congressional Budget Office, as of June 30, estimated that we will 
spend this fiscal year, which ends at the end of September, $103 
billion more than we take in.
  The President's own document, the OMB projection, not only states we 
will have a deficit for the next 5 years, but the deficit and the debt 
will continue for a 15-year period, the debt going up from $5.6 
trillion to $7.7 trillion. It is going up to 2.1 trillion bucks and 
everyone is running around talking about surplus, and we are getting 
602(b) allocations at the Subcommittee on

[[Page 17399]]

State, Justice, Commerce, of $1.3 billion less than we have this year. 
We are spending more than we are taking in, and otherwise trying to 
find $1.7 billion in the census.
  Faced with those constrictions, I wonder where in the world do you 
find money for the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the Democratic 
Party and Republican Party--how do you justify it?
  Back in the eighties we had Lech Walesa and they did have a wonderful 
labor movement and they did bring democracy there in Poland. But I 
don't know of the labor movement that is going on in the People's 
Republic of China. I have been there three times now and I have yet to 
meet a labor leader, much less the likes or ilk of Lech Walesa.
  So, yes, we stand up to be counted for democracy. We are hoping to 
sustain the economic credibility of this particular republic by saying 
we have to make choices. I tried to pay for these programs. I have even 
introduced a value-added tax allocated to reducing the deficit and the 
debt and taking care of Social Security. But these friends who come to 
the floor and talk in fanciful terms about they are for democracy and 
independent movements for democracy--the inference being, of course, 
the State Department is not--on the contrary.
  I hear about taking it from the Capital Investment Fund. I remember 
working some 4 years ago with Under Secretary Moose, Dick Moose, who 
used to be the director of our Foreign Relations Committee who the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana would remember well. Everybody is 
talking about security of the Embassies and facilities in the 
Department of State. The communications computerization of the 
Department of State and the Embassies overseas and around the world is 
in terrible shape. It is similar to the Pony Express. So 4 years ago we 
instituted the Capital Investment Fund to get Y2K compliance. The 
Chamber of Commerce, that crowd that was running all over the floor 
fixing the votes for Y2K--a problem that could not possibly happen for 
6 months and everybody is beginning to comply and they wanted to upset 
200 years of tort law back at the State level where they know how to 
administer it best--they came in to do that. And now they want to make 
darn sure the Department of State is not Y2K compliant.
  Tell the Chamber of Commerce to look for democracy somewhere else and 
money somewhere else. The same for all these other entities that want 
to get NED, the National Endowment for Democracy. It is a political 
sop. It has been that for several years and everybody knows it.
  We would like to give it all to desirable things. There have been 
some good things that happened under the National Endowment for 
Democracy years back, but they continue to embellish and run around 
with responsibilities they try to find, makeshift and otherwise, so 
they know it is going to be in trouble when they come to the floor. 
They get distinguished leadership to bring these amendments. I take it 
I will be in a minority, but I have gotten used to being a minority of 
the minority.
  With that said, I hope we can save this amount of money somehow, the 
$30 million. It is not easy to get the moneys we need all over for the 
Department of State. I can tell you now, we are on course. To take $30 
million from the telecommunications upgrades and computerization 
upgrades we are now about doing, and start cutting that back for the 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, is out of the whole cloth for 
this Senator who stands here in the well for democracy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from South Carolina 
in his views on this issue. I recognize we will lose this vote, but we 
have had our brief day in the Sun at least. The fact is NED's time has 
gone by. For all the arguments that have been made by the Senators who 
have spoken on this, the bottom line is this is a relic of the cold 
war. In a time when we have very limited resources, it is very hard to 
justify funding the Democratic National Committee, the Republican 
National Committee, AFL-CIO, and the Chamber of Commerce, all of whom 
have significantly more resources to put into this than we have 
available for us out of these very limited accounts.
  Many of the things NED has done during the time of the cold war were 
wonderful. But now we have moved on 10 years from the fall of the 
Berlin Wall and it is time for us to say enough is enough. 
Unfortunately, in my opinion, some of the things NED is doing now are 
not. They end up being a substitute for initiatives which are both 
inappropriate and sometimes just simply junkets.
  That being said, I am concerned, as is the Senator from South 
Carolina, this will take funds out of the capital budget of the State 
Department. We have worked hard on this budget. We have taken the State 
Department from getting a ``D'' in the area of Y2K compliance to now, 
just 2 years later, it is one of the agencies getting an ``A.'' Two 
years ago when we started capital budget expansion, which we initiated 
in this committee--it did not come from the State Department; although 
they were very supportive of it, they could not find resources for it--
a majority of the Embassies around the world were using rotary 
telephones. They were using Wang computers. They had no decent 
facsimile machines. We have radically upgraded the electronic 
capabilities of the State Department. But we have a long, long, long 
way to go. It all ties into the need to protect our citizens who are 
working for us out there and their families.
  So when you hit this fund for $30 million, which represents about 30 
percent of the money--and this fund was not increased this year; 
although I wanted to increase it, we simply could not find the money--
you are going to do significant damage, I think, to the State 
Department's accounts. The State Department, for that reason, is very 
concerned about this amendment.
  That being said, the Senator from South Carolina, being one of the 
best vote counters in the Senate, and I, being a marginal vote counter 
as chief whip, we recognize we are not going to win this one. I think 
we should vote on it and move on. If the Senator from Indiana is 
agreeable to that, I suggest we urge adoption.
  Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate very much the words of the Senator and I 
appreciate the desire to move on with the bill. I want to recognize the 
distinguished Senator from Florida has arrived. He, likewise, shares 
our enthusiasm for passing the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I am sure.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, on this occasion of the almost annual debate 
on NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, we can and we must 
declare our commitment to promoting freedom in the world.
  Freedom often exacts a price--it indeed is not free. Ronald Reagan 
understood this when he created NED, as have successive Presidents and 
Congresses who have consistently funded NED.
  Freedom is sacred. It is to be honored, protected, and shared with 
the world. It is the core of all human progress, and therefore, the 
spread of freedom enriches us all.
  But let us not forget, the price of freedom can be great. Just as we 
focus in this body these days on our abundance we must not forget those 
who have come before us; we must not forget in whose shoes we are 
walking. How many Americans have died; have put their lives on the line 
in the glorious pursuit of that sweetest of goals--emancipation from 
oppression and tyranny. We are the direct benefactors of the 
dedication, selflessness, and even the spilled blood, of countless 
people.
  Should we be proud of those achievements? Of course, but we must also 
accept the weight--the responsibility--of this gift. The awesome 
responsibility which we have inherited. Because, when I said that 
freedom is not free, I was not only speaking of the cost to those 
currently suffering in the world to throw off the yoke of tyranny, but

[[Page 17400]]

also the price to us, the benefactors of past actions.
  We are once again on the floor of the Senate to defend the National 
Endowment for Democracy. The last time we fought this battle, 2 years 
ago, 72 Senators voted to restore the funding to NED after the 
subcommittee zeroed the account. We are here today facing the same 
circumstances. The good news with the regularity of this debate, if we 
look for the bright side, is that we know very well of the strong 
support in the Senate for NED. And let me explain why.
  The history is important. In 1983, Ronald Reagan outlined an 
initiative for the United States to publicly lead the struggle for 
freedom around the world. A policy which I remember well as a young 
House Member and in many ways continues to influence my thinking about 
American foreign policy. A fundamental pillar of that policy was the 
National Endowment for Democracy.
  Let me read to you from a letter by President Reagan, from July 4, 
1993.

       On this 217th anniversary of our nation's independence, I 
     am reminded that America's greatness lies not only in our 
     success at home, but in the example of leadership that we 
     provide the entire world.
       Our work, however, is not complete. As I look abroad, I see 
     that the struggle between freedom and tyranny continues to be 
     wages. Disappointly, in some places, it is autocracy, not 
     freedom, that is winning the day. That is why I strongly 
     support continued Congressional funding for the National 
     Endowment for Democracy (NED). Ten years ago, at Westminster, 
     you will recall that I outlined a new, bold initiative for 
     our country to publicly lead the struggle for freedom abroad. 
     As past of this effort, at my request, the National Endowment 
     for Democracy was created.

  Mr. President, let me point out a few fundamental things. First, NED 
is not a ``cold war relic,'' as some critics argue. You will note that 
President Reagan did not say that the purpose was to defeat communism, 
to defeat the Soviet Union, or to contain any particular ideology. He 
said that the mission of NED was to support America's efforts to ``lead 
the struggle for freedom.'' You should also note that the letter from 
which I read is dated July 4, 1993--2 years after the fall of the 
Soviet Union. So let me be clear: NED is not about the cold war and has 
never been exclusively about fighting communism or the Soviet Union. 
The National Endowment for Democracy is about freedom.
  My second point is that the need for NED is as great today as it has 
ever been.
  We opposed communism because the flawed ideology oppresses people and 
empowers tyrants. Communism has almost disappeared as a threat today; 
but tyranny has not--oppression has not. Indeed, tyranny and oppression 
continue to rule in far too many places around the globe. If you accept 
that we were right in the past to oppose freedom's foes, then we have 
the same task today, perhaps even more complicated than in the past.
  This vote, therefore, comes down to a simple issue: does the struggle 
for freedom continue in the world and does the United States continue 
to have a role in the struggle for freedom abroad? Does tyranny still 
reign in far too many places on earth? The answer is quite obviously, 
``yes.''
  Let me address some critical questions others have raised.
  Does NED work? NED works extremely well by providing resources to the 
freedom-activists throughout the world. NED identifies people 
struggling for economic, political, labor, press, and other reforms and 
gets them the resources necessary to fight against local oppression.
  His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet says the following about NED:

       The National Endowment for Democracy furthers the goals of 
     your great nation and has provided moral and substantive 
     support for oppressed peoples everywhere. Its unique 
     independent mission has brought information and hope to 
     people committed to peace and freedom, including the 
     Tibetans. I sincerely hope that this institution will 
     continue to receive support, because America's real strength 
     comes not from its status as a `superpower' but from the 
     ideals and principles on which it was founded.

  So the final question which someone may rightly put to this debate: 
why not the State Department? Isn't NED redundant?
  To answer this question, I defer to some experts who understand the 
executive branch and State Department well. I turn to a bipartisan 
group of former Secretaries of State and National Security Advisors.
  In a 1995 letter, former National Security Advisors Allen, Carlucci, 
Brzezinski, and Scowcroft state that NED:

       . . . operates in situations where direct government 
     involvement is not appropriate. It is an exceptionally 
     effective instrument in today's climate for reaching 
     dedicated groups seeking to counter extreme nationalist and 
     autocratic forces that are responsible for so much conflict 
     and instability.

  Let me emphasize that these National Security Advisors state that NED 
is operating where the U.S. government cannot.
  I also have a letter from former Secretaries of State, including 
Secretaries Baker, Muskie, Eagleburger, Shultz, Haig, Vance, and 
Kissinger. This distinguished group states the following:

       During this period of international change and uncertainty, 
     the work of NED continues to be an important bipartisan but 
     non-governmental contributor to democratic reform and 
     freedom. We consider the non-governmental character of the 
     NED even more relevant today than it was at NED's founding.

  Let me review the main arguments. First, NED's necessity did not end 
with the cold war, but remains an integral part of America's opposition 
to the enemies of freedom. Second, the world continues to need 
America's invaluable work in promoting freedom--perhaps even now more 
than ever. And finally, NED makes a unique contribution to America's 
initiative to ``lead the struggle for freedom abroad.''
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lugar 
Amendment to restore funding to the National Endowment for Democracy.
  One of the noblest characteristics of the American people is their 
desire to spread the promise of freedom and democracy throughout the 
world. In fact, the history of our nation is replete with examples of 
men and women who have put their own lives on the line in defense of 
other people's freedom.
  The 9,386 U.S. soldiers buried at the Normandy American Cemetery in 
France are more than heroes. They are a testimony to the American 
willingness to defend democracy. Yet, they are just a few of the 
literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who have sacrificed their 
lives to secure democracy both at home and abroad.
  However, the fight for freedom need not always be waged on the 
battlefield. Indeed, some of the greatest democratic victories have 
come, not as a result of our military might, but rather from the power 
of our ideas.
  If you doubt this, ask Vaclav Havel how the irresistible pull of 
democratic values helped liberate the Czech people. Ask Nelson Mandela 
about how the persuasive power of American democracy helped encourage 
the struggle for freedom in South Africa's townships. Ask Kim Dae Jung 
about the decades of American sacrifice and the difference between life 
in a free South Korea and a totalitarian North Korea. Mr. President, 
each of these men have come before Congress to say that their freedom 
is due in no small part to the willingness of the American people to 
oppose despotism and to support nascent democratic movements in their 
country.
  The transformation from totalitarianism to democracy that has swept 
much of the world in the last decade is nothing short of remarkable. 
Much of the success of this movement can be attributed to U.S. support 
for democratic movements, including the on-the-ground programs of the 
National Endowment for Democracy. This is a legacy of which we should 
be proud. It's a success story we should do a better job of explaining 
to the American people.
  NED was established by Congress in 1983 as a non-profit, bi-partisan 
organization. It promotes democratic values by encouraging the 
development of democracy in a manner consistent with U.S. interests, 
assisting pro-democracy groups abroad, and strengthening electoral 
processes and democratic institutions. NED accomplishes these goals by 
providing funding to a wide variety of

[[Page 17401]]

grantees that operate programs in more than 80 countries throughout the 
world.
  Mr. President, for over 15 years the National Endowment for Democracy 
has been at the center of our global democracy efforts. Critics have 
argued it is a relic of the Cold War. They insist NED's usefulness as 
an organization disappeared with the Soviet Union. This simply is not 
the case. As long as there are people still struggling to be free, 
there will be a need to support democratic reforms. The truth is, 
almost two-fifths of the world's population still live in un-democratic 
countries. In these countries, people are not given the ability to 
speak their minds, to practice their religious beliefs, or to unleash 
the power of their own enterprise.
  NED grantees are in these countries and are working with pro-
democracy groups. In Cuba, NED grantees are helping local dissidents 
use the world wide web to interconnect and to spread independent news. 
NED sponsors radio broadcasts into Burma in support of the democracy 
movement led by Aung San Suu Kyi. And in Iraq, NED provides support for 
the Free Iraq Foundation to disseminate human rights information from 
within Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.
  Beyond extending the power of democracy to those people still toiling 
under despotic governments, NED is also actively engaged in the effort 
to solidify democratic progress. Democracy does not exist simply after 
the first free and fair election--democracy cannot be established 
solely by the ballot box. Instead, a true democratic society is based 
on the foundations of the rule of law, respect for the rights of all 
people, a free press, and civilian control of the military.
  In countries around the world, NED grantees are involved in helping 
develop this broader concept of democracy. For example, in Russia NED 
grantees are supporting efforts to promote the rule of law and to 
establish legal guarantees for the ownership of land. In Nigeria, they 
have supported local pro-democracy groups who were instrumental in 
facilitating this year's historic elections. These are examples of the 
hundreds of programs NED and its grantees have been involved with in 
support of democratic reform.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor today to argue that the fight for 
democracy is as important to U.S. national security today as it was at 
the height of the Cold War. It is for this reason that I will vote in 
favor of the Lugar amendment to restore funding for the National 
Endowment for Democracy. I recognize the tight discretionary spending 
limits the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee were forced 
to work under. I understand very difficult decisions had to be made in 
preparing the piece of legislation. However, there are few priorities 
as great, and few programs as cost-effective, as our global democracy 
efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to support freedom around the world by 
supporting the National Endowment for Democracy and the Lugar 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment will restore $30 million in 
funding for the National Endowment for Democracy.
  I understand that the State Department accounts are severely 
underfunded and there is no easy way to fund these programs, and I will 
work to ensure that all the State Department accounts are funded by the 
time this bill emerges from conference.
  In spite of the unfortunate position we now find ourselves, it is 
nevertheless critical that we restore the funding for the National 
Endowment for Democracy.
  Today we will debate the merits of the NED and the importance of its 
mission. This will be the seventh time in the last seven years that the 
Senate debates NED funding.
  The last time this debate took place, in 1997, an effort to eliminate 
NED funding was reversed by a vote of 72-27.
  I am hopeful that this current debate will reach a similar 
conclusion.
  But this debate is really about much more than the National Endowment 
for Democracy.
  What we are debating here today goes to the very fundamental nature 
of our democracy.
  Are we to continue to be the beacon of freedom to which oppressed 
peoples around the world look to for guidance and support in their 
struggles to attain the same liberties and freedoms that we hold so 
dear?
  Or are we going to shrink from that responsibility and abandon those 
who seek to change the fundamental character of their nations so that 
their people may enjoy the benefits of freedom?
  Around the world, the NED is a vibrant and effective advocate for the 
ideals for which our fore fathers risked their lives and sacred honors.
  It is our ambassador to the oppressed people of the world who are 
fighting and risking their lives for freedom.
  But you don't need to take my word for this. Let me tell you about 
some others who believe that the NED is as important as I do.
  In 1995, seven former Secretaries of State sent a letter to the 
congressional leadership that stated:

       During this period of international change and uncertainty, 
     the work of the NED continues to be an important bi-partisan 
     but non-governmental contributor to democratic reform and 
     freedom.

  Four Former National Security Advisors, Allen, Brzezinski, Carlucci, 
and Scowcroft, wrote that ``the endowment remains a critical and cost-
effective investment in a more secure America, and we support its 
work.''
  Just this week, the New York Times editorialized on the importance of 
the NED, and the Wall Street Journal printed a piece by former 
President Carter and Paul Wolfowitz, an official in the Reagan and Bush 
administrations, that did the same.
  So many as champions of democracy have recognized the important 
contribution of NED to their own work.
  These include Harry Wu, the Chinese human rights activist, His 
Holiness the Dalai Lama, Elena Bonner, the chairman of the Andrei 
Sakharov Foundation, and Vaclav Havel.
  To some here in Congress, the NED is a target to undermine and 
defund.
  But to those struggling to overcome oppression in some 80 or 90 
countries around the world, NED is a helping hand in their fight for 
democracy.
  I ask my colleagues to stand with freedom and democracy, to stand 
with those who have led democratic transitions, and to stand with those 
who continue to pursue the dream of democracy around the world.
  I ask my colleagues to stand with the NED.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Lugar 
amendment, which will restore funding for the National Endowment for 
Democracy (NED). Since its inception in 1983, NED has been a cost-
effective means of ensuring that American democratic principles have 
the opportunity to flourish around the world. NED works on a bipartisan 
basis in over 80 countries in every region of the world to help build 
stable, peaceful democracies. This, in turn, furthers America's 
national security interests, since working to support secure, strong 
democracies is one of the most effective means of combating the spread 
of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and destabilizing refugee 
problems.
  NED enjoys strong, bipartisan support, receiving the support of each 
administration and the bipartisan congressional leadership since its 
inception. In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, former 
President Jimmy Carter and Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz, President Bush's 
Under Secretary of Defense, wrote: ``The creation of the NED in the 
1980s reflected a bipartisan belief that the promotion of freedom is an 
enduring American interest and that nongovernmental representatives 
would best be able to help their counterparts build democracy in other 
countries.''
  NED has a strong track record, developed through involvement in 
virtually every critical struggle for democracy of the past decade-and-
a-half. NED provided vital support to the movements that brought about 
peaceful transitions to democracy in Poland, Chile, and South Africa. 
Indeed, as a recent New York Times editorial noted: ``It is

[[Page 17402]]

hard to think of a dictatorship whose opponents have not benefited from 
the endowment.''
  NED uses its funds efficiently and effectively. A recent audit 
conducted by the U.S. Information Agency's Inspector General looked at 
fiscal years 1994-1999 and did not question a single cost related to 
the management of NED's grants.
  NED's independence is the key to its success. Without the restoration 
of NED's funding as a separate, congressionally mandated line item, NED 
will have to be funded through the State Department's foreign aid 
process. This would undermine NED's independence, and therefore its 
effectiveness.
  If NED were to be too closely associated with the Department of 
State, then NED might be seen as merely a mouthpiece for whatever 
administration currently occupies the White House. This would dilute 
its effectiveness.
  NED must be allowed to continue to make decisions about where to 
provide its vital assistance without having first to clear those 
decisions through the State Department bureaucracy, which may not 
always share NED's agenda. The United States carries out high-level 
diplomatic relations with a number of nondemocratic regimes, such as 
China. The State Department might be tempted to scale back NED's 
democracy-building activities in such countries if the Department 
viewed those activities as interfering with the Department's diplomatic 
agenda. This must not be allowed to happen, and keeping NED independent 
is the only way to ensure that it does not.
  The Lugar amendment restores funding for this vital organization 
while ensuring its independence. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
amendment of the Senator from Indiana and am confident that it will be 
approved by a majority of my colleagues.
  This is the second time in 3 years that funding for the National 
Endowment for Democracy has been eliminated in the Senate Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill. And this is the second time this 
year that we are debating the NED issue on the floor of the Senate 
despite consistently overwhelming votes in favor of the NED.
  I find it difficult to understand why we keep returning to this 
matter when the record is clear--there is a consensus of support for 
the endowment in the Senate. As my colleagues are aware, last month 
there was an effort on a different measure (State Department 
authorization bill) to seriously undermine and weaken the National 
Endowment for Democracy and the work of its core institutes. That 
amendment was soundly defeated on a vote of 76-23. In 1997, NED funding 
was restored by the Senate on a vote of 72-27.
  Over the years, the NED and its core institutes have done some 
extremely effective work around the world in strengthening and 
assisting in the development of democratic institutions, and protecting 
individual rights and freedoms.
  The relationship between NED and its core institutes has worked 
rather well. These four core entities, including the National 
Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute 
(IRI), represent key sectors of our democratic society: business and 
labor, and the two political parties which have formed a major part of 
the American democratic system.
  Each sector offers a special expertise in helping develop fledgling 
democratic systems and has assisted grassroots and indigenous 
organizations, civic groups, and individuals across the globe in more 
than 90 countries.
  Indeed, many individuals and groups, recognized in the Congress for 
having fought for human rights, freedom, and democracy, have received 
vital support from the NED family. They, in turn, have praised the NED 
because of the critical assistance which made it possible for them to 
pursue valuable efforts in their own countries.
  I should note that the NED has provided support to Chinese dissidents 
since its establishment in 1983. In fact, the endowment's first grant 
in 1984 was for a Chinese-language journal edited in the United States 
and circulated in China.
  The NED serves an important role because of the fact that it can 
operate as an entity independent from any government. And it can 
support nongovernmental groups which provide opportunities that would 
not otherwise be available if these activities were undertaken by a 
government, or governmental agency.
  In fact, NED grants have been helpful in leveraging resources from 
the private sector and encouraging other international institutions to 
participate as well. And in-kind contributions, for example, come in 
the form of experts who offer their free time and efforts on a probono 
basis to conduct training seminars and to monitor elections worldwide.
  The National Endowment for Democracy has enjoyed broad bipartisan 
support since it was established in 1983 under President Ronald Reagan. 
Former Secretaries of State, including Henry Kissinger, Cy Vance, Ed 
Muskie, George Shultz, and Jim Baker all have been very supportive of 
NED's work and its ``strong track record in assisting  . . . 
significant democratic movements over the past decade.''
  In a letter this week to my colleague from Florida, national security 
adviser Sandy Berger reaffirmed the President's and his 
administration's strong support for the NED. As he indicates, ``from 
supporting election monitoring in Indonesia, to promoting independent 
media in the Balkans, the NED represents and promotes the most 
fundamental of American values throughout the world. . . . The 
President remains one of the strongest champions of the endowment''.
  The sweeping and profound changes resulting from the end of the cold 
war provide ample reason as to why we continue to need institutions 
like the NED which can operate in a cost-effective manner and, at the 
same time, promote our interests and values. Many of the new 
democratics which have emerged from the implosion of the Soviet Union, 
and the collapse of the Iron Curtain, have benefited from the 
assistance NED and its grantees have provided.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will see the wisdom of continuing 
support for the NED.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Lugar-
Graham-Mack amendment to restore funding to the National Endowment for 
Democracy. I rise as an unwavering supporter of the Endowment since 
that day in 1982, when President Ronald Reagan announced his intent to 
create an institution to promote abroad the most fundamental of 
American political values --democracy.
  Since the Endowment was instituted the following year, it has 
received overwhelming bipartisan support. On six occasions the Senate 
has debated funding for the NED; on all six occasions the Senate has 
reaffirmed its commitment. We most recently debated funding the 
Endowment in 1997 and reaffirmed our support for it in a vote of 72-27. 
I expect that today the Senate will once again go on record 
demonstrating support for this venerable institution.
  Support for the NED goes beyond bipartisan politics. Rarely is there 
such near-unanimity in the so-called ``foreign policy establishment.'' 
But, in recent years, we have seen seven former Secretaries of State 
from both Republican and Democratic presidents--Secretaries 
Eagleburger, Baker, Haig, Kissinger, Muskie, Shultz and Vance--co-sign 
a letter in support of the National Endowment for Democracy.
  But the NED's support extends well beyond the Beltway into American 
society at large. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly 
supports the Endowment, recognizing that the promotion of democracy 
requires the rule of law, on which all fundamental, productive 
commercial activity rests. The AFL-CIO is also a principal supporter of 
the NED, recognizing the inseparable bond between the advancement of 
democracy and the protection of independent labor's right to organize.
  Both of these organizations, along with the Republican and Democrat 
parties, form the core groups through

[[Page 17403]]

which the NED coordinates programs currently active in over 80 
countries of the world.
  Further, support for the NED is widespread among our nation's media, 
editorialists and academics. How often, Mr. President, do we see 
editorials in support of an institution on the pages of liberal and 
conservative media? There has recently been editorial support for NED 
expressed by The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal 
and The Washington Times. I ask unanimous consent that the editorials 
be added at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I often detect confusion in foreign policy 
debate between the concepts of ``interest'' and ``values.'' For 
example, the President, at the end of Operation Allied Force over 
Yugoslavia, declared it an operation in support of our values. I 
disagree: The NATO actions in Kosovo, which I supported, protected 
American interests, specifically our interests in a stable southeastern 
Europe.
  The fact is that defining America's national interest is more 
fundamental than the promotion of democracy. But the reality is, Mr. 
President, that where we find democracy we are more likely to find it 
easier to protect our interests.
  For this reason, the advancement of democracy as a foreign policy 
goal has by no means been diminished by the end of the Cold War. I 
supported the actions of the NED during the Cold War, along with 
members of both parties. I worked with the NED and International Labor 
Organization supporting the nascent Solidarity movement in the early 
1980s and am deeply proud of the work done by NED's early grantees.
  But the world is more complicated, with more challenges to U.S. 
interests, in the post-Cold War era. We need the NED more than ever. 
And if we look around this complicated globe, we see that NED's 
activities are complementing our foreign policy.
  China is perhaps the most vexing challenge this country faces. We 
cannot determine the direction political evolution in China will take. 
We hope for the day when democracy spreads to the mainland.
  Our dear friends in Taiwan, after all, have demonstrated that Chinese 
political culture is by no means alien to democracy. But on the 
mainland, the goals of political reform are murky. We don't know what 
the outcome will be in the next century--it may be democracy, it may be 
fascism, it may be something else.
  There is evidence to be optimistic, as we see the increasing 
manifestations of grassroots democracy and openness. Unfortunately, 
there is also evidence to be skeptical, given official actions that 
imprison democratic activists, outlaw non-political organizations, and 
threaten aggression against us and our friends. My attitude has always 
been to plan for the worst, but work for the best possible outcome.
  One of those ways to work for the best possible outcome is to support 
the NED, which has promoted democracy in China since its inception. A 
brief and incomplete list of NED's activities in China would include:
  Supporting, as one of its first grants, a Chinese-language journal 
that circulated in China in the mid-1980s;
  Supporting a New York-based human rights group, Human Rights in 
China, which assembled basic data on conditions in China;
  Assisting Harry Wu's Laogai Research Foundation, which exposed the 
abhorrent abuses in China's prison labor system; and,
  Contributing to the Tibetan Human Rights Foundation.

  In addition, my colleagues who have read the fascinating reports by 
the International Republican Institute on their work advising on and 
monitoring village level elections in China will recognize a practical 
and profoundly significant activity funded by the Endowment. These are 
among many, many other programs supported by the NED in China.
  The skeptics can say that NED's activities are small in comparison to 
Beijing's power to suppress. That is true. But my view is that it is 
always better to light a candle than curse the darkness, and the NED 
has been providing light and support to democrats in China, throughout 
Asia, and all around the world.
  Indonesia just had its first free and open elections in over 40 
years. Indonesia is the fourth most populous nation in the world after 
China, India and the United States.
  As a result of this election, a country that has historically had 
good relations with us, a country that remains of great geostrategic 
importance, is now set to become the world's third largest democracy. 
Indonesia is a country with which we've had shared interests; those 
interests are now advanced because we now have shared political values. 
The ruling and opposition parties consulted with the NED throughout the 
period leading to these historic elections.
  I could go on and on about NED's activities promoting democracy 
around the world. I will simply add one more example: Three weeks ago a 
remarkable conference on emerging democracies was held in Yemen. Yemen, 
my colleagues will recall, was divided until 1990--South Yemen was one 
of the most radical countries in the Arab world.
  Since reunification in 1990, the NED has worked through its core 
institutes, the International Republican Institute and the National 
Democratic Institute, to support that country's transition to 
democracy. Yemen has had two parliamentary elections and is today one 
of the few Arab nations that has universal suffrage.
  The government of Yemen deserves the credit for this remarkable 
political evolution and deserves the support of the United States. But 
we should be proud, very proud, of the efforts that the NED has 
expounded in assisting this political reform. And, three weeks ago, 
when representatives from around the world convened in Yemen to see 
that this nation of 18 million can enhance its culture and empower its 
people through democracy, it was appropriate that they saw the NED as a 
supporter of democracy there, and everywhere.
  In recognition of these and other activities, brave democracy 
proponents around the world--individuals that Congress regularly lauds, 
that we regularly bring to the Hill for their perspectives on their 
parts of the world--these individuals have spoken of the need to 
preserve the NED.
  Hong Kong's Martin Lee, Chinese human rights activist Harry Wu, 
Vietnamese human rights activist Vo Van Ai, his Eminence the Dalai Lama 
have all declared the fundamental and irreplaceable importance of the 
NED in trying to advance democratic values in China, in Asia, around 
the world.
  I urge my colleagues to think of these individuals as they determine 
whether the Senate should continue to support funding for the National 
Endowment for Democracy.
  In every region of the world where the U.S. has interests or is 
challenged--in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq--there are people striving and 
risking their lives for democratic expression. They see the United 
States as a role model.
  The NED is actively working with all of these people, and in doing 
so, demonstrates America's--and Congress's--commitment to their causes. 
I urge my colleagues to continue their support for this important 
institution.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, July 21, 1999]

                      A Vote for Democracy Abroad

       In most repressive countries today, civic activists such as 
     election monitors, labor organizers, independent journalists 
     and human rights groups look to Washington for support. But 
     the Senate may vote any day to end one of their most 
     important lifelines. Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, 
     has persuaded the Appropriations Committee to recommend that 
     the National Endowment for Democracy's funding drop from $31 
     million to zero. The Senate should defy him and vote to 
     preserve an organization whose mission is more vital than 
     ever.
       The endowment finances four international affairs 
     institutes, run by the Republican and Democratic parties, the 
     Chamber of Commerce and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. The endowment also 
     gives money directly to organizations abroad that promote the 
     rule of law and democracy. One of its strengths is that its

[[Page 17404]]

     budget is independent of the State Department.
       It is hard to think of a dictatorship whose opponents have 
     not benefited from the endowment. Among hundreds of other 
     projects, it has provided money and advice for village 
     elections and exposure of prison labor camps in China, human 
     rights groups in Sudan, independent broadcasting in Serbia, 
     families of political prisoners in Cuba and the underground 
     labor movement in Myanmar. Augusto Pinochet might still be 
     ruling Chile if the National Democratic Institute had not 
     helped the opposition set up a parallel vote count during the 
     1988 plebiscite on his rule, which caught Mr. Pinochet's 
     attempt to rig the outcome. The endowment has earned the 
     right to remain healthy and independent.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 21, 1999]

                    Don't Take Democracy for Granted

                  (By Jimmy Carter and Paul Wolfowitz)

       Last month Indonesia held its first free elections in more 
     than 40 years. The balloting was overseen by a wide array of 
     international observers, including an American delegation 
     organized by the National Democratic Institute and the 
     International Republican Institute. Their efforts have laid 
     the groundwork for Indonesia to become the world's third-
     largest democracy (after India and the U.S.) and a beacon of 
     freedom for Asians and Muslims everywhere.
       This is only the latest good work done by the two groups, 
     loosely affiliated with the major U.S. political parties, 
     which monitored an election in Nigeria earlier this year. 
     Both groups are funded by a modest grant ($4 million each) 
     provided by the National Endowment for Democracy.
       Fifteen years ago President Reagan and Congress established 
     the NED to spearhead America's nongovernmental efforts at 
     assisting democratic movements around the world. The NED, 
     which today has a budget of just $31 million, has been one of 
     the most cost-effective investments our country has made to 
     foster peace and democracy.
       But last month a Senate subcommittee voted to discontinue 
     funding for this vital program. The senators said they expect 
     the State Department to fund the NED out of foreign-aid 
     spending. This is an unlikely prospect, because the State 
     Department hasn't made any provisions for the endowment.
       Even if it did, that would undermine the NED's 
     independence. The creation of the NED in the 1980s reflected 
     a bipartisan belief that the promotion of freedom is an 
     enduring American interest and that nongovernmental 
     representatives would best be able to help their counterparts 
     build democracy in other countries.
       Today the full Senate is expected to consider an amendment 
     sponsored by Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.) to restore funding 
     for the NED. It would be a tragic mistake if we took for 
     granted the current democratic trend in world affairs and 
     decided to reduce our support for these efforts.
       Like Indonesia, many important countries that have 
     conducted elections--among them Russia, Mexico and Nigeria--
     need the support of free nations in order to consolidate 
     democratic gains. We must also help movements in Asia and the 
     Middle East striving peacefully to democratize authoritarian 
     countries. And we need to encourage free and fair elections 
     as part of the reconstruction effort in the Balkans. 
     Defunding the NED would undermine this important mission.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, June 25, 1999]

                          Exporting Democracy

       The National Endowment for Democracy is one of the less 
     known but, in the foreign policy universe, one of the more 
     appreciated aspects of the Ronald Reagan legacy. 
     Congressionally funded but largely independent in its 
     operations, it mainly gives grants to the two political 
     parties and leading business and labor groups to spread the 
     word of civil societies, party development and election 
     procedures, and democratic and human rights advocacy. 
     Recognized abroad, it is scrutinized closely at home, which 
     is fine but a bit unnerving to its supporters all the same.
       This week, for instance, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis), in 
     an authorization bill, sought to strip the endowment of its 
     favor for and reliance on the four ``core'' groups and to put 
     the whole of the institution's $30 million budget up for 
     competitive political bidding. It sounded like a reasonable, 
     even democratic proposal, but three-quarters of the Senate 
     wisely accepted the response that the endowment, with its 
     support for the two parties and the AFL-CIO and Chamber of 
     Commerce, already builds in a wholesome set of checks and 
     balances true to the spirit of American democracy.
       A lingering difficulty arises from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). 
     Making use of the deference enjoyed by Appropriations 
     subcommittee chairmen, he has held up all funds sought for 
     the endowment. He would prefer that the administration take 
     the money out of the State Department, which, he points out, 
     funds democracy promotion under its own budget.
       Mr. Gregg is right that the Cold War is over. But 
     considerations of strategy as well as sentiment require that 
     the effort to sustain fledging democratic societies and 
     initiatives ought to be a permanent part of American policy. 
     To tuck the endowment into the State Department, moreover, 
     would deprive it of precisely the independence wherein its 
     chief value lies. Can you imagine, for instance, the 
     ``engagement''-minded State Department sponsoring Chinese 
     nongovernmental organizations?
       In sum, the endowment is an experiment to exporting 
     democracy that has been working openly, for 15 years. It has 
     been tested in heavy political weather, some of it churned up 
     by its own early misuses. There is reason to believe the 
     Senate would support the appropriation if Sen. Gregg were to 
     let it register its judgment. That would be the democratic 
     thing for him to do.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, June 24, 1999]

                            Let the NED Live

       At a time when the United States and its allies are engaged 
     in what could be a prolonged war of words with Serbian leader 
     Slabodan Milosevic, it is nothing less than astounding that 
     the U.S. Senate should see fit to zero out funding for one of 
     the most important tools in the nation's ideological arsenal, 
     the National Endowment for Democracy. Mr. Milosevic may have 
     acknowledged military defeat, but he still clings to power 
     with the tenacity of a badger. A major problem in removing 
     Mr. Milosevic is the regrettable fact that he was in fact 
     democratically elected by the Serbs, who therefore also carry 
     responsibility for what happened to them. It will take some 
     effort to persuade them to remove their leader again by 
     democratic means.
       This is where the National Endowment for Democracy comes 
     in, and also the other U.S. services and international 
     broadcasters devoted to spreading free and unfettered 
     information and building democratic institutions. To dwell on 
     Serbia for a moment, the state television channel is run by 
     none other than Mr. Milosevic's daughter, a filial 
     relationship replayed throughout the states of the former 
     Soviet Union, where assorted family members routinely are 
     placed in charge of the post-communist ``free'' media.
       If we are concerned about spreading democracy, and we 
     should be, institutions like the National Endowment for 
     Democracy remains vital. What is also vital is that the NED 
     be kept at arm's length from State Department interference, 
     that it not be seen as simply a tool of American foreign 
     policy, but an institution whose basic mission remains fixed.
       This year, the Clinton administration has requested $32 
     million in funding for the NED for fiscal year 2000, hardly 
     an exorbitant sum given that the NED has programs in 80 
     countries around the world. Though there is broad bipartisan 
     support in the Senate for the NED, its funding has been 
     zeroed out by the Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, 
     Justice, State, chaired by Sen. Judd Gregg. It has been 
     suggested that funding ought to come out of the State 
     Department's democracy fund, a bad idea both in principle and 
     in practice--seeing that no such funding has been allocated. 
     Last time the NED survived a frontal assault, it was two 
     years ago when funding was restored on the Senate floor with 
     overwhelming support. Another line of assault was blocked by 
     the Senate yesterday by a 76-23 vote, as Sen. Russ Feingold 
     tried to introduce an amendment to micromanage NED grants 
     through State.
       One might get the idea that the U.S. Senate does not 
     consider the promotion of democracy a worthy cause in and of 
     itself. No, it does not produce instant results, but the 
     world's greatest democracy should be in this for the long 
     haul.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I urge the question.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1289) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from New 
Hampshire.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mai-Huong 
Nguyen, a fellow with Senator Frist's office, be granted the privilege 
of the floor during the discussion on the Commerce-State-Justice 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 17405]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1291

  (Purpose: To amend title III of the Family Violence Prevention and 
Services Act and title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
   of 1965 to limit the effects of domestic violence on the lives of 
                   children, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 1291.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment that I offer, with the 
support of Senator Murray, is an amendment which is really based upon a 
piece of legislation we have introduced titled ``Children Who Witness 
Domestic Violence Protection Act.''
  We have come to the floor, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we 
have talked about the destructive effect of some of the violence that 
children see on television or children see at the movies. 
Unfortunately, an awful lot of children see the most graphic violence 
in their homes, and they are affected by it.
  It depends upon, really, whose study you put the most emphasis on, 
but somewhere between 3 million and 5 million children in our country 
all too often are essentially victims of violence in their homes. In 
about 50 percent of the cases, when a man batters a woman, the children 
are also battered. Just imagine, colleagues, what it would be like over 
and over and over again to see your mother beaten up, battered. Just 
think of the effect it would have on you.
  Actually, this is an area in which I have tried to do a lot of work. 
I would say my wife Sheila has really been my teacher. She knows more 
than I do, and her education comes from what lots of people around the 
country who have worked in this area for a very long time have taught 
her.
  But one of the missing pieces, which in no way, shape, or form takes 
away the emphasis on the effect of this violence on women--sometimes 
men; most all the time women--one of the missing pieces has been the 
effect of this violence in homes on the children. Let me give you some 
examples.
  Julie is a 4-year-old girl. She was the only witness to her divorced 
mother's fatal stabbing. Several months earlier, at the time of the 
divorce, Julie's father had publicly threatened to kill his ex-wife. 
Although the father lacked an alibi for the night of the crime, there 
was no physical evidence linking him to the homicide.
  In describing the event, Julie consistently placed her father at the 
scene and recounted her father's efforts to clean up prior to leaving. 
Only after the district attorney saw Julie stabbing a pillow, crying, 
``Daddy pushed mommy down,'' did he become convinced that the father, 
indeed, was the murderer.
  This is from the work of Jeff Edelson, who actually is a Minnesotan 
and does some of the most important work in the country. There is no 
more graphic example of: What do you think the effect on the child is 
from seeing this?
  Dr. Okin and Alicia Lieberman at San Francisco General Hospital are 
currently treating a 6-year-old boy who observed his father fatally 
sever his mother's neck. At the beginning of the treatment, he was 
unable to speak.
  Jason, who did not visually witness his parents fighting, described 
hearing fights this way: ``I really thought somebody got hurt. It 
sounded like it. And I almost started to cry. It felt really, I was 
thinking of calling, calling the cops or something because it was 
really getting, really big banging and stuff like that.''
  These are voices of children in the country.
  A lot of the work for this amendment comes from some people who have 
done very distinguished work in this country.
  Betsy McAlster Groves at Boston Hospital is treating a 3-year-old 
girl, Sarah, who was brought in by her maternal grandmother. Sarah was 
having nightmares and was clinging and anxious during the day. Her 
mother had been fatally shot while Sarah was in the same room in their 
home.
  A home is supposed to be a safe place for our children.
  Betsy is also treating two boys, ages 5 and 7, whose mother brought 
them in after they witnessed their father's assault on her. The father 
was arrested over the weekend and was in jail. The mother was unable to 
tell the sons the truth, instead claiming that their father had taken a 
trip to Virginia.
  What I am saying to you is that these children do not need to turn on 
the evening news. They do not need to see the violence in the movies or 
on television. It occurs right in their own homes.
  What I am also saying is that this has a very destructive effect on 
many children, a profound effect, placing them at high risk for 
anxiety, depression, and, potentially, suicide. Furthermore, these 
children themselves may become more violent as they become older. 
Exposure to family violence, a good number of the experts in the 
country suggest, is the strongest predictor of violent, delinquent 
behavior among adolescents. It is estimated somewhere between 20 and 40 
percent of chronically violent adolescents have witnessed extreme 
parental conflict.
  It is an important point. When you talk to your judges, and they talk 
about some of the kids they are dealing with, they will tell you that 
in a very high percentage of the cases these children have come from 
homes where either they themselves have been beaten up or battered or 
they have seen it, they have witnessed it. Usually it is their mother 
they have seen beaten up.
  Let me tell you about Tony and Sara from Minnesota. Tony is 10 years 
old and his sister Sara is 8. Tony and Sara were severely traumatized 
after seeing their father brutally attack their mother. They were 
forced to watch their father drag their mother out to the driveway, 
douse her with gasoline, and hold a flaming match inches from her.
  Tony and Sara are not the only children in our country who are 
terrified by violence that they see on almost a daily basis.
  This amendment, which is based upon work with Senator Murray, is a 
comprehensive first step toward confronting the impact of domestic 
violence on children. I just want to summarize it because it is my hope 
that there will be strong support for this on both sides of the aisle.
  First of all, what we want to do, based upon, again, work we have 
seen in Minnesota, we have seen in Boston, we have seen in San 
Francisco, seen around the country, is we want to make sure we develop 
partnerships between the courts and the schools, the health care 
providers, the child protective services, and the battered women's 
programs.
  When communities apply for funding, the first thing we are going to 
say is, yes, make this happen at the community level, but do not have 
different agencies with different mandates. You guys have to show us 
that you are focusing on these children and you are getting the support 
services to these children.
  I say to my colleague from South Carolina, I have talked to many 
educators. They say one of the problems they have is that quite often 
they may have a child in school who is not doing well and they do not 
know what is going on with that child. And what they find out--and this 
is the second part of this amendment, training for school officials 
about domestic violence and its impact on children, making sure they 
have the training and the support services for the teachers and the 
counselors--many times these kids haven't slept at night. Many times 
these kids come to school terrified. Many times these kids act out 
themselves. Many times these kids are in trouble, and many times we 
don't know what is going on in their lives.

[[Page 17406]]

  We have finally started to focus on this violence in homes, too much 
of it directed toward women. But if you talk to people around the 
country who are down in the trenches doing the best work, from the 
academics to the community activists, they will tell you the missing 
piece is we have not focused enough on the effects on the children. 
That is what this amendment does.
  The third piece of this amendment addresses domestic violence and the 
people who work to protect our children from abuse and neglect. There 
is a significant overlap, obviously, between domestic violence and 
child abuse. In families where one form of family violence exists, 
there is a likelihood that the other does. In about 50 percent of the 
cases, if the mother is being battered, the child is being battered. So 
the problem is these child protective services and domestic violence 
organizations set up their own separate programs, yet few of them work 
together to see what is happening within families.
  This amendment creates incentives for local governments to 
collaborate with domestic violence agencies in administering their 
child welfare programs. The funds will be awarded to States and local 
governments to work collaboratively with community-based domestic 
violence programs to provide training, to do screening, to assist child 
welfare service agencies in recognizing the overlap between domestic 
violence and child abuse, to develop protocols for screening, intake, 
assessment and investigation, and to increase the safety and well-being 
of the child witnesses of domestic violence.
  I could go on for hours about this because, honest to God, it is a 
huge issue in our country. I wish it wasn't.
  The second piece of this--and I will be through in 5 minutes--is 
supervised visitation centers. I have to explain this. Part of the 
problem is, even if you have a woman who has said: I am getting out of 
this home, or I am getting my husband out of this home; he is a 
batterer, and she finally is able to do it--it is not easy--and you 
have small children, the other parent, the noncustodial parent, usually 
the man, wants to see the children and should be able to under most 
circumstances. The problem is, at the time in which he comes to the 
home to pick up the children or drop the children off, the violence can 
occur again. There is no safety there. Or the problem is in some cases 
you are worried about what the father will do to the children. But a 
judge doesn't want to say: You can never see your children. And 
sometimes, as a result of that, the children are in real jeopardy. So 
the second part of this authorizes funding for supervised visitation 
centers.
  These are visitation centers where there can be a safe exchange.
  At the risk of being melodramatic, let me dedicate this amendment to 
5-year-old Brandon and 4-year-old Alex, who were murdered by their 
father during an unsupervised visit in Minnesota. They were beautiful 
children. Their mother Angela was separated from Kurt Frank, the 
children's father. During her marriage, Angela was physically and 
emotionally abused by Frank, and Frank had hit Brandon and split open 
his lip when once he had stepped between the father and the mother to 
protect the mother. She had an order of protection--Shiela and I both 
know Angela; she is very courageous--against Kurt Frank, but during the 
custody hearings, her request for the husband to only receive 
supervised visits was rejected. Kurt Frank murdered his two sons, these 
two children, during an unsupervised visit, and then he killed himself.
  Honest to God, when there is some question about the safety of these 
children, we can do better. These safe visitation centers work. It 
makes all the sense in the world. These children's lives could have 
been saved. The father could have seen them, but it would have been 
under some supervision. That is the second part.
  Third, the amendment recognizes the importance of police officers. 
This amendment comes from input from the law enforcement community 
around the country. What they are saying is: Quite often we are the 
ones who find the traumatized children behind the doors, beneath the 
furniture, in the closets, when we go to the homes. We want to know 
what we can do for these children. We would like to have the training. 
That is what this amendment provides for.
  Then, finally, for crisis nurseries, it is important. A family is in 
crisis. The mother has two children dealing with an abusive 
relationship, trying to end the relationship. There is lots of tension 
in the home. There is the potential for violence. She wants to be able 
to take her child somewhere or her two children somewhere where they 
can be safe for one night or 2 days or 3 days. That is what these 
crisis nurseries do. They work well.
  We have talked about the violence in the media. We have talked about 
the violence in the video games. But we rarely have dealt with the 
millions of children each year who are witnessing real-life violence in 
their homes. I believe we have to figure out ways to get the funding to 
the communities that will provide the support.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate and the Nation are fortunate, 
indeed, to have the Senator from Minnesota. He continues to redirect 
our attention to the life and death struggles that families go through 
every single day. Oftentimes he is a lonely voice on the Senate floor, 
but he is a person of principle and value. If it meets with his 
permission, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to this 
important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Minnesota a question. I listened 
carefully to his presentation and asked for a copy of the amendment to 
read it more closely.
  One of the things I have found in working with law enforcement 
officials--I think the Senator from Minnesota has highlighted it--is 
they come upon a scene where a violent crime, maybe a very serious 
violent crime has been committed, and among all of their concerns, 
preserving evidence, making certain, if possible, to save any victim 
who might be battered or injured, there is that tiny little person who 
has just witnessed this scene.
  When I spoke to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
one of the things which we discussed was to put on each investigative 
report from a violent crime a section that would indicate that the 
police know that minor children witnessed the violent crime and perhaps 
a method, then, of providing confidential information to counselors or 
social workers who would know. Then there is a heads-up, there is a red 
flag, that there has been a child involved. That child may be so young 
as to be overlooked as part of the investigation report, and they have 
suggested--and I think it is valuable, and perhaps at some point we can 
make it part of this effort--that law enforcement officials would be 
looking for this because, as the Senator from Minnesota has so 
eloquently given to the Senate today in his presentation, these kids 
witnessing violence can have their lives changed dramatically. An 
intervention at that point could not only make things better for them 
but could ultimately save their lives.
  I ask the Senator from Minnesota if he would be kind enough to 
consider that either as a suggestion as part of this legislation or in 
separate correspondence with those who would administer the programs he 
has suggested.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if we could do a modification 
right now--I will work it up in the next couple of minutes--where, as 
Senator Durbin is saying, the police would automatically check off the 
observation that a child or the children are at home as a part of the 
form. Then, again, if you had it at the community level, that is where 
this has to happen--the real interface and cooperation with school 
officials, with child protective services, with health care, with law 
enforcement, with counselors in the school--the focus would be on the 
child. These children are falling between the cracks.

[[Page 17407]]

  Mr. President, that would be an excellent idea. I will try to maybe 
work on a modification. I am sure my colleagues will allow me to do a 
technical correction later.
  Altogether, this is an authorization for an appropriation, but it is 
authorization for $153 million a year for 3 years, which I think is not 
much to spend for what we can do. Later on, I know this gets resolved 
in the appropriations battle. I ask my colleagues whether they have a 
response. I can talk about this in more detail. I can go through the 
budget. I can talk about each specific program. But if you want to move 
along and you think this is something you can support, I would be very 
proud. I think it would be important.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Minnesota will yield, this is a fairly 
extensive piece of legislation. It may take us a little while to take a 
look at it. I suggest we lay it aside for a moment and move on to 
whatever comes next and then come back to it, if the Senator doesn't 
mind.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague I am pleased to 
do that. That will give us a chance to add the suggestion of Senator 
Durbin, and if we need to debate later on, I can give lots of examples 
and debate the need for this. If my colleagues support it, that will be 
great. Let's wait and see what you think. We will temporarily lay this 
amendment aside.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1292

  (Purpose: To clarify that nothing in the Act shall be construed to 
  prevent the use of funds to recover Federal tobacco-related health 
                 costs from responsible third parties)

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
     Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1292.
       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. XX. AUTHORITY TO RECOVER TOBACCO-RELATED COSTS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the 
     Department of Justice from expending amounts made available 
     under this title for tobacco-related litigation or for the 
     payment of expert witnesses called to provide testimony in 
     such litigation.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Durbin, and others, as a means of raising our strong 
objection to a provision that appeared in the report accompanying the 
Senate Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. That provision was 
on two pages.
  On page 15 of the report, the last sentence in the first paragraph 
reads:

       No funds are provided for tobacco litigation or the Joint 
     Center for Strategic Environmental Enforcement.

  Then on page 25, in the lower half of the page, this sentence 
appears:

       No funds are provided for expert witnesses called to 
     provide testimony in tobacco litigation.

  My objection is that those two sentences have with them a clear 
inference that it is the policy of the Senate that the Department of 
Justice, in a rare instance, should be denied the investigative and 
prosecutorial discretion to determine whether it is in the interest of 
the United States and its people for the Federal Government to bring 
litigation against the tobacco industry and pursue that litigation in 
an effective manner.
  Even more troubling is the sweeping nature of this language, which I 
believe could be reasonably interpreted to amount to a grant of 
immunity to the tobacco industry from Federal prosecution.
  Further, if the Senate fails to strike this offending report language 
which grants immunity to the tobacco industry, we will be reversing the 
intent of a sense-of-the-Senate amendment we adopted less than 4 months 
ago by a unanimous vote, on March 25. The Senate clearly articulated 
not only that it was supportive of the Federal litigation but 
determined that the use of settlement dollars should be primarily to 
add to the strength of the Medicare trust fund on the basis that it is 
the Medicare trust fund that has been primarily affected by these 
excessive health care costs. I will discuss that in a moment.
  While preparing a litigation strategy and while allowing the 
Department of Justice to exercise its traditional range of discretion, 
it is by no means a guarantee of success. Denying funds to the 
Department of Justice, tying their hands at the outset, precluding them 
from the ability to hire expert witnesses will only assure the failure 
of this important legal initiative.
  We all know the tobacco industry is responsible for tens of billions 
of dollars of tobacco-related illnesses that the Federal Government 
spends to care for and treat individuals with lung cancer, emphysema, 
heart disease, and every other illness associated with tobacco use.
  The most recent estimate for the costs incurred by the Federal 
Government for the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses totals $22.2 
billion each year. This includes Medicare, $14.1 billion; Veterans' 
Administration, $4 billion; Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, 
$2.2 billion; Department of Defense, $1.6 billion; Indian Health 
Services, $300 million.
  Put simply, a vote that retains this restrictive report language 
would, in essence, grant the tobacco industry immunity against Federal 
litigation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an editorial from the 
Washington Post be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Post editorial describes the stark implications of 
rejecting the amendment. The Post states:

       It would be an amnesty for decades of misconduct and a 
     retroactive taxpayer subsidy for that misconduct as well.

  My second main objection to this language is that on May 20 of this 
year, the Congress, through a conference committee on the emergency 
supplemental bill, enacted a provision that denied the Federal 
Government access to some $250 billion which the States have secured 
through their tobacco settlement.
  The original amendment, which was introduced by Senator Hutchison of 
Texas and myself, as well as Senator Bayh, Senator Voinovich, and other 
Members of the Senate, passed this Senate by a vote of 71-29. This body 
could not have spoken with more clarity: Uncle Sam, keep your hands off 
the States' money.
  But in taking that vote, while we said to the Federal Government, 
``Hands off,'' I and many of my colleagues, including Senator Hollings 
and others, had argued that if the Federal Government wants its own 
money, then it should sue the tobacco industry for the recovery of 
funds spent for the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses in Federal 
programs, such as Medicare. If that sentiment was true just a few weeks 
ago, it is certainly true today.
  My third objection is that this report language would be an 
abdication of our Federal responsibility to deny the Justice Department 
its most fundamental responsibility. What is that responsibility? It is 
the responsibility to locate and to investigate areas where 
individuals, organizations, entire industries, may in fact be liable 
and responsible for harming the people of the United States of America.
  Evidence uncovered by the States in their successful legal efforts 
against the tobacco industry clearly implicates the tobacco industry in 
their complicity to cover up evidence of addiction and illness related 
to the product they produce and market. To allow the tobacco industry 
to escape responsibility for these practices and to not investigate it 
fully to determine whether the Federal Government can recoup funds--
funds that come from the taxpayers of America, funds that have been 
paid out to treat tobacco-related illnesses--would be totally 
irresponsible and a surrender of our fiduciary responsibility to the 
taxpayers.
  Finally, there are some parties to this litigation who have no 
alternative

[[Page 17408]]

but to have the Federal Government litigate on their behalf.
  In this instance, I am speaking about Native Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 4 
additional minutes to conclude my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate must now 
return to the Gregg amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes to complete my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the letter from the National Congress of 
American Indians signed by its president, Mr. W. Ron Allen, states:

       There are many Indian Nations, however, who do not possess 
     the resources to bring individual suits and will, therefore, 
     rely upon the DOJ to bring suit on their behalf.

  I do not believe we should tolerate a situation in which a large 
number of our Native Americans are precluded from having their legal 
rights represented.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to strike the offending report language. 
I urge my colleagues to allow the Justice Department to do its job, and 
to use its best professional judgment on how to proceed with its legal 
strategy against the tobacco industry.
  Rather than giving the Marlboro Man and rather than giving Joe Camel 
another victim, let us vote to hold the tobacco companies accountable 
by the simple action of allowing the Department of Justice to do its 
responsible job as the Nation's investigator and litigator.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Leadership Council of 
Aging Organizations, which represents organizations such as the AARP, 
the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Families USA, 
National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Council on the Aging, the 
National Council of Senior Citizens, and many other organizations 
representing older Americans which also support this language--support 
it particularly because they recognize the possibility of strengthening 
the Medicare program through funds derived from a successful 
prosecution of this litigation--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Leadership Council of Aging Organizations

       Dear Senator: The undersigned members of the Leadership 
     Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO) are writing because we 
     are concerned about the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
     appropriations bill (S. 1217) that will soon be taken up on 
     the Senate floor. As you know, DOJ intends to sue the 
     nation's tobacco companies to recover the billions of dollars 
     Medicare, VA and other federal health care programs have 
     spent on health care costs caused by tobacco use.
       We have learned that the DOJ appropriations bill not only 
     denies requested funding for this important, effort, but also 
     includes language that may actually block the lawsuit. The 
     states took action to hold the industry accountable for the 
     related costs imposed on their state health programs. Given 
     the success of the state suits, the federal government has an 
     obligation to undertake similar action to protect Medicare 
     and other federal health programs. We cannot understand why a 
     successful course of action that was appropriate for 50 
     states and resulted in tobacco payments of over $240 billion 
     could be considered inappropriate for the federal government 
     to pursue. In addition, blocking the lawsuit would violate an 
     agreement reached in the Budget Resolution.
       The costs to Medicare and other federal health programs due 
     to tobacco are even greater than costs imposed on state 
     programs. Tobacco-caused health care costs in the United 
     States exceed $70 billion each year and the federal 
     government pays a large portion of those costs, including 
     over $14 billion per year on tobacco-caused Medicare 
     expenditures. Given this drain on Medicare and other federal 
     health programs, the Senate should support the DOJ's efforts 
     to recover these funds.
       We expect Senator Bob Graham and others to offer an 
     amendment when S. 1217 is considered on the floor to clarify 
     that DOJ should be permitted to move forward with litigation 
     against the tobacco industry. We urge you to support the 
     Graham amendment.
       At a time when Congress is wrestling with how to strengthen 
     and preserve the future of Medicare and prepare it for the 
     retirement of the baby boom generation, Congress should take 
     every opportunity to protect this essential program. 
     Defending Medicare is more important than defending tobacco 
     companies.

                               Exhibit I,

                       A New Kind of Tobacco Tax

       As it now stands, the Senate version of the Justice 
     Department's appropriation would restrict the department's 
     authority to file suit against the tobacco companies. Unless 
     the matter is resolved in last-minute negotiations, an 
     amendment to fix this problem will be put forward on the 
     Senate floor by Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) when the bill is 
     taken up. Whether by amendment or negotiation, the current 
     restriction has to go.
       The department contends that the tobacco industry has 
     engaged in intentional wrongdoing over the past 50 years in 
     order to cover up the addictive qualities of its product. 
     Industry misconduct, the argument goes, has resulted in huge 
     federal health care bills. Normally, when a company 
     fraudulently exacts such a toll on the taxpayer, the Justice 
     Department seeks to recover some of that money. And that is 
     what the department plans. It has asked Congress for $20 
     million for a planned suit. But the Senate appropriations 
     subcommittee chairman, Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), seems to have 
     other ideas. He inserted language into a committee report 
     specifying that no money may be used for such a suit. The 
     language would at least complicate the Justice Department's 
     efforts, and it could be read to forbid a federal suit 
     altogether.
       The decision on whom to sue is a quintessentially executive 
     branch power in which Congress has no legitimate role. If 
     senators want to protect the tobacco industry's ill-gotten 
     gains, they are free to change the laws under which Janet 
     Reno is contemplating action. But it is the attorney 
     general's job to decide whose violations of the law merit 
     federal action. Moreover, when the attorney general plans a 
     civil action against companies she claims have bilked the 
     taxpayers of billions of dollars, it is not the place of any 
     senator to seek to prevent the recovery of money that, in the 
     judgment of the executive branch, lawfully belongs to the 
     American people.
       The amendment would not give the department the $20 million 
     it has requested, but it would clarify that other money can 
     be used for the suit. There can be no misunderstanding a vote 
     to reject such a change. It would be an amnesty for decades 
     of misconduct and a retroactive taxpayer subsidy for that 
     misconduct as well.

                               Exhibit 2

                                                 National Congress


                                          of American Indians,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The National Congress of American 
     Indians (NCAI), the oldest and largest Indian advocacy 
     organization is pleased to support your amendment to strike 
     language in the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill 
     (S. 1217) that would deny federal funds to be expended by the 
     Department of Justice (DOJ) for Tobacco litigation, including 
     expenses related to expert witnesses.
       Indian Nations have been affected profoundly by the tobacco 
     industry. To that end, NCAI acknowledges and respects the 
     rights of Indian Nations to file individual suits against the 
     tobacco industry to recover for tobacco related illnesses and 
     believes that Indian Nations should be the beneficiaries of 
     any funds recovered. There are many Indian Nations however, 
     who do not possess the resources to bring individual suits 
     and will therefore, rely upon the DOJ to bring suit on their 
     behalf. NCAI would not want to foreclose that option to 
     Indian Nations. Moreover, there are many unanswered questions 
     regarding any suits that may be filed by the DOJ on behalf of 
     Indian Nations. Until more questions have been answered, NCAI 
     cannot support any language that would foreclose any options 
     to Indian Nations.
       Senator Graham, NCAI believes your floor amendment to 
     strike said appropriation language will benefit a number of 
     Indian Nations throughout Indian Country and we thank you for 
     your efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                          W. Ron Allen, President.

       Please support the Graham amendment and deny the tobacco 
     companies special legal protections.

     AARP
     AFSCME Retiree Program
     Alliance for Aging Research
     Alzheimer's Association
     American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
     American Association for International Aging
     American Geriatrics Society
     American Society on Aging
     Association for Gerontology and Human Development in 
         Historically Black Colleges and Universities

[[Page 17409]]

     Catholic Health Association
     Eldercare America
     Families USA
     Meals on Wheels Association of America
     National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys
     National Asian Pacific Center on Aging
     National Association of Area Agencies on Aging
     National Caucus and Center on Black Aged
     National Council on the Aging
     National Council of Senior Citizens
     National Osteoporosis Foundation
     National Senior Citizens Law Center


                           Amendment No. 1272

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand we are back on the pending 
underlying Gregg amendment, and that the Senator from South Carolina 
has time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator is correct. The 
regular order now is the Gregg amendment with 10 minutes on each side.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the time be reserved for the 
parties presently assigned to it, and I make a point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. 1292, Withdrawn

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment I had offered 
relative to prohibition on tobacco litigation be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to address a question to the chairman of the 
Subcommittee, the Senator from New Hampshire, regarding funding for the 
Civil Division of the Justice Department.
  In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton announced that 
the Federal Government intended to sue the nation's tobacco companies 
to recover billions of dollars in smoking-related health care costs 
reimbursed by federal health care programs. The administration's FY 
2000 budget requested $15 million in new resources for the Civil 
Division of the Justice Department and $5 million for the Fees and 
Expenses of Witnesses account support this litigation effort.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to provide the additional resources 
requested by the administration for the Civil Division to carry out 
this task. While I regret that the committee was unable to provide the 
new funds, it is my understanding that if the Justice Department deems 
this activity to be a high priority, base funding, including funds from 
the Fees and Expenses of Witnesses account, can be used for this 
purpose.
  I ask the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee if my 
understanding of the bill and the report language is correct?
  Mr. GREGG. I agree with the Senator from Iowa. While the committee 
was unable to provide new funding as the administration requested, 
nothing in the bill or the report language prohibits the Department 
from using generally appropriated funds, including funds from the Fees 
and Expenses of Witnesses Account, to pursue this litigation if the 
Department concludes such litigation has merit under existing law.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I also agree with Senator Harkin.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I would like to address the chairman of the subcommittee. 
Does the chairman also agree to strike the language or page 15 and or 
page 25 of Senate Report 106-76 relating to funding for tobacco 
litigation.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. President, I yield to my colleague and cosponsor of the 
amendment, the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida, and also 
Senator Gregg, Senator Hollings, Senator Harkin, and others who have 
been party to the establishment of this colloquy. I think the Record is 
eminently clear that the Department of Justice has the authority to 
move forward on tobacco litigation without any limitation whatsoever 
from this legislation.
  I am glad we achieved that and did it in a bipartisan fashion. I 
thank Senator Graham for his leadership. I was happy to join him on the 
amendment and to be part of this colloquy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield? Is there a time limit?
  Mr. KERRY. Ten minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kerry pertaining to the introduction of S. 1420 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I 
withhold that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________