[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17443-17466]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes all action on S. 1217, it not be engrossed and be held 
at the desk. I further ask that when the House of Representatives 
companion measure is received in the Senate, the Senate immediately 
proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause of the 
House bill be stricken and the text of S. 1217, as passed, be inserted 
in lieu thereof; that the House bill, as amended, be read for a third 
time and passed; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
thereon, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part 
of the Senate; and that the foregoing occur without any intervening 
action or debate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that upon passage by the Senate of 
the House companion measure, as amended, the passage of S. 1217 be 
vitiated and the bill be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is a wind-up unanimous consent 
request. I wonder if the distinguished manager would agree that we 
would have a voice vote on final passage, which would then cause this 
Boxer amendment vote to be the last vote tonight.
  Mr. GREGG. That is the intention, and we hope that is the desire of 
the Senate. Therefore, the Boxer amendment will be the last vote 
tonight.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that there be a voice vote on 
final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will 
not--do we all agree that when the conference report returns, we will 
have the vote on that?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Definitely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Boxer amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--61

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Kennedy
     Leahy
     McCain
     Shelby
  The motion was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1306

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1306) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 17444]]




                    Amendment No. 1271, As Modified

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 1271, a 
previously adopted amendment. I send it 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 New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and 
     Mr. Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 1271, as 
     modified.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

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

[[Page 17445]]

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

  Mr. GREGG. This technical amendment has been cleared on both sides. I 
ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1271), as modified, was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 1272 Withdrawn

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment numbered 
1272.
  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 Secondary Education Act of 1965 to 
 limit the effects of domestic violence on the lives of children, and 
                          for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Wellstone and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1291.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent we accept amendment No. 1291.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1291) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1342

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to hush kits)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a sense of the Senate to the desk 
and ask unanimous consent it be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Gorton, 
     for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. 
     Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 1342.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. XX. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL 
                   NOISE RULE AFFECTING HUSHKITTED AND REENGINED 
                   AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) For more than 50 years, the International Civil 
     Aviation Organization (ICAO) has been the single entity 
     vested with the authority to establish international noise 
     and emissions standard; through OCAOs efforts, aircraft noise 
     has decreased by an average of 40 percent since 1970;
       (2) ICAO is currently working on an expedited basis on even 
     more stringent international noise standards, taking into 
     account economic reasonableness, technical feasibility and 
     environmental benefits;
       (3) International noise and emissions standards are 
     critical to maintaining U.S. aeronautical industries' 
     economic viability and to obtaining their on going commitment 
     to progressively more stringent noise reduction efforts;
       (4) European Council (EO) Regulation No. 925/1999 banning 
     certain aircraft meeting the highest internationally 
     recognized noise standards from flying in Europe, undermines 
     the integrity of the ICAO process and undercuts the 
     likelihood that new Stage 4 standards can be developed;
       (5) While no regional standard is acceptable, this 
     regulation is particularly offensive, there is no scientific 
     basis for the regulation and it has been carefully crafted to 
     protect European aviation interests while imposing arbitrary, 
     substantial and unfounded cost burdens on United States' 
     aeronautical industries;
       (6) The vast majority of aircraft that will be affected by 
     EC Regulation No. 925/1999 are operated by U.S. flag 
     carriers; and
       (7) The implementation of EC Regulation No. 925/1999 will 
     result in a loss of jobs in the United States and may cost 
     the U.S. aviation industry in excess of $2,000,000,000.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) EC Regulation No. 925/1999 should be rescinded by the 
     EC at the earliest possible time;
       (2) that if it is not done, the Department of State should 
     file a petition regarding EC on Regulation No. 925/1999 with 
     ICAO pursuant to Article 84 of the Chicago Convention; and
       (3) the Departments of Commerce and Transportation and the 
     United States Trade Representative should use all reasonable 
     means available to them to ensure that the goal of having the 
     rule repealed is achieved.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a sense of the 
Senate amendment regarding the recent unilateral action of the EU 
effectively banning hushkitted and re-engineered aircraft from 
operating in European Union states. If this rule is implemented on May 
1, 2000 it will have a discriminatory impact on U.S. carriers and 
equipment manufacturers, not to mention setting a bad precedent for 
action by countries or groups of countries outside of the established 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards-setting 
process.
  This legislation was adopted by the EU on April 29, 1999, but 
implementation was delayed until May 2000 to allow U.S. and EU 
representatives to work out the framework of a new, more stringent 
global aircraft noise standard within ICAO. The Federal Aviation 
Administration and the State Department have been in negotiations with 
the EU on the eventual withdraw of this unfair and discriminatory 
statute.
  Many of my colleagues have seen recent efforts by the European Union 
to gain the upper hand over the United States in matters of trade. 
Aviation has proven to be no different. And this is deeply troubling, 
because aviation is not only a primary source of a favorable balance of 
trade for the United States, but, because of its global reach, 
represents an area where international standards are crucial to 
facilitating that commerce among nations. Yet, as I stated earlier, the 
EU has acted to preempt U.S. air carriers and carriers from other parts 
of the world from serving points in Europe with certain hushkitted or 
re-engineered aircraft. This restriction applies even though those 
aircraft fully comply with Stage 3 international noise standards 
adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
  This European regulation, although its implementation has been 
deferred until May 2000, has already created financial hardships for 
U.S. aerospace manufacturers and airlines. It must be withdrawn or we 
will see a continued impact on U.S. jobs and profits. Modifying the 
rule or deferring its implementation for an added period of time will 
not offer the relief needed by U.S. aviation interests--the financial 
markets simply do not respond favorably to uncertainty. The U.S. 
government has engaged in extensive discussions with the European 
Council for the past year, without achieving a commitment to a repeal 
of this rule, which I might add expressly protects European aviation 
interests. The time has come to

[[Page 17446]]

achieve a timely resolution of this problem through action.
  The Sense of the Senate resolution I offer today cites the need for 
complying with international standards in the aviation arena and 
highlights the problems the rule is causing for U.S. manufacturers and 
operators. Failing an early commitment by the Europeans to withdraw 
this arbitrary and discriminatory rule, the resolution calls upon the 
Department of State to initiate an Article 84 proceeding before ICAO. 
It is my understanding that this type of proceeding is not a sanctions 
mechanism, but instead affords a process that provides an opportunity 
for the international aviation body to rule on whether this regulation 
complies with international aviation standards.
  This Sense of the Senate further calls upon other agencies of the 
executive branch to use the tools at their disposal as well to achieve 
the early repeal of this rule. There is a broader point to be made as 
well, which is that, without restoring credibility to the international 
aviation standards process, we can have little or no confidence about 
any future international standards adopted by the international 
aviation community through ICAO. That is a very dangerous precedent for 
the global aviation environment in the future.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator 
Gorton regarding the European Union's (EU) rule affecting hushkitted 
and re-engined aircraft. This Sense of the Senate amendment will make 
clear to the Europeans that the United States will not tolerate unfair, 
discriminatory restrictions on trade that go against international 
principles and standards.
  For those who are not familiar with the issue, I will provide a brief 
background. To comply with international aircraft noise standards, the 
U.S. aviation industry adopted so-called hushkit technology to bring 
its older aircraft into compliance. Some airlines also purchased new 
engines for their older aircraft. Even though these hushkitted and re-
engined aircraft comply with the new international noise standard, the 
EU took legislative action to freeze the number of these aircraft 
within the EU Community at the 1999 level. Although the EU delayed 
final implementation of this rule for one year, this move has the 
effect of setting a more stringent noise standard in Europe.
  Unfortunately, implementation of this rule is likely to have a 
discriminatory and costly impact on the United States aviation industry 
without any noise reduction benefits. The fact that this rule does not 
have a similar effect on industries in the EU is troubling. It is my 
understanding that certain aspects of the rule were tailored to protect 
European aviation interests. But one of the worst aspects of this rule 
is the terrible precedent that it sets for unilateral action by 
countries or groups of countries outside of the established 
international standards-setting process.
  Earlier this year I wrote to European officials to express my deep 
frustration with their having chosen this particular, unilateral course 
of action to address the issue of aircraft emissions. Regulations such 
as the one at issue should be taken through the appropriate 
international channels, such as the International Civil Aviation 
Organization. Adoption of this rule by the EU has effectively breached 
a 50-year regime of global environmental rules in aviation.
  A regional rule such as this one will undermine the ability of 
lesser-developed nations, the aerospace industry, airlines, and the 
United States to work toward international standards for more stringent 
aircraft engine emissions, which is the purported rationale for the EU 
rule. I sincerely hope that the EU will come to realize the benefits of 
a single, rational aviation regime for all nations.
  The delay in implementation of the rule was granted as a result of a 
U.S. commitment to work in partnership with the EU within the 
established international process to develop a new, more stringent 
global aircraft noise standard. Since its adoption, the Federal 
Aviation Administration has been working bilaterally with 
representatives of the European Commission to develop an agreement to 
work in partnership on resolving this matter to everyone's 
satisfaction.
  Despite the ongoing consultations, and regardless of the delay in 
implementation of the rule, U.S. industry is being negatively impacted 
right now. Because the hushkit rule is on the books, the market assumes 
that the rule will eventually come into effect. This has had a profound 
impact upon many businesses. So it is important that this matter be 
resolved soon.
  The Europeans must understand how important it is that the 
considerations of the United States are taken into account with respect 
to this matter. If progress is not made in the near future, calls for 
taking strong action against the EU will grow. As a committed proponent 
of free trade, I am adamantly opposed to the EU rule. For the same 
reason, I do not support inappropriate retaliation on the part of the 
United States in this matter. Despite my opposition, however, the U.S. 
may in fact retaliate, which could do harm to businesses and consumers 
on both sides of the Atlantic.
  Whether retaliatory in nature or not, the U.S. has many tools at its 
disposal to address the matter if the EU proves to be intractable in 
its position. For example, the United States Trade Representative is 
considering preparation of a World Trade Organization case focusing on 
the discriminatory aspects of the rule. Northwest Airlines has filed a 
complaint with Department of Transportation asking for retaliatory 
measures. Most recently, the U.S. aviation industry has asked the 
government to take official action under the so-called Chicago 
Convention, which governs many aspects of international aviation, 
claiming that the EU rule is not in compliance with international 
standards.
  I do not want this issue to become the subject of a trade war. But if 
the EU fails to grasp the determined opposition of the U.S. aviation 
industry to this rule, there may be serious repercussions. I hope that 
this Sense of the Senate will begin to get the message to the EU that 
this issue cannot remain unresolved for too much longer.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the Sense of the 
Senate with respect to the discriminatory European trade practices 
being perpetrated against certain American products in the guise of 
promulgating regulations on noise emissions.
  Last year the European Union began to restrict the use of so called 
hushkitted or reengined U.S. aircraft in the European community. These 
aircraft had been specifically modified to meet U.S. Stage 3 quiet 
noise standards. Ironically, the United States is several years ahead 
of Europe in urging U.S. aircraft to be reengined to comply with such 
standards.
  EC Regulation No. 925/1999 has been crafted in such a way as a noise 
standard to effectively prohibit U.S. aircraft that have been 
hushkitted from flying in European airspace even though these aircraft 
are actually quieter than many European aircraft and engines. The 
standard is written in such a clever way that it touches only U.S. 
products. That in and of itself should make anyone suspicious as to 
whether the motive is noise abatement or a clearly disguised technical 
barrier to trade.
  At the moment the EU has delayed implementation of the regulation but 
it has not been formally rescinded. That means that anyone thinking 
about buying U.S. aircraft that have been hushkitted, which most older 
aircraft have been to meet U.S. standards, would have to make some 
judgement as to whether this regulation is likely to resurface again. 
If the judgement is yes then a potential buyer would refuse to buy U.S. 
aircraft if they would be contemplated for use on European routes.
  For more than fifty years, the International Civil Aviation 
Organization (ICAO) has been the single entity vested with the 
authority to establish international noise and emission standards, and 
thanks to its efforts aircraft noise has been decreased by forty 
percent. Moreover, ICAO is working as we speak to tighten international 
noise

[[Page 17447]]

standards even further. For the European Council to arbitrarily seek to 
preempt the efforts of the ICAO is extremely unhelpful and patently 
discriminatory against U.S. aircrafts and engines.
  The amendment I have offered today calls upon the U.S. Department of 
State to seek international relief from this discriminatory regulation 
by partitioning the ICAO under existing relevant international 
conventions. It also calls upon other relevant U.S. agencies with 
jurisdiction over trade and transportation matters to work to resolve 
this matter.
  Mr. President, there are clearly binding amendments that could be 
offered to deal with this problem. I do not support such an effort at 
this time. This is a matter for the Departments of State and 
Transportation together with the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative to work out with their European counterparts. I strongly 
urge them to do so on an expeditious basis.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a sense of 
the Senate regarding the European Council noise rule affecting 
hushkitted and reengined aircraft. Under the guise of an environmental 
regulation, the European Union is engaged in a blatant effort to lock 
out the U.S. industry. Once again the EU is dragging its feet rather 
than finding a balanced resolution to this issue. It is time that we 
turned up the heat on the EU and roll back this patently protectionist 
measure.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1342) was agreed to.


                               fcc funds

  Mr. GREGG. I would like to clarify the intent of the Committee 
regarding the funds appropriated in this bill for the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC). The Committee's intent is that none of 
the funds provided for the agency in this bill are to be used by the 
FCC to reimburse the General Services Administration for the cost of 
the agency's relocation to the Portals site. I would ask the Ranking 
Democrat of the Subcommittee if that is his understanding as well.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Subcommittee Chairman has accurately stated the 
intent of the Committee with regard to this issue.


                        school safety initiative

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, the ranking member 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and 
Judiciary (CJS), about an innovative program recently started by the 
State of Virginia, which I believe falls within the allowable use of 
funds within the Safe Schools Initiative, a line item that appears in 
the FY 2000 CJS Appropriations Bill.
  Senator Hollings, it has recently come to my attention that the State 
of Virginia has begun implementing a new program to reduce crime in its 
schools called ``4 Safe VA.'' This program is a public/private 
partnership, which includes online reporting of school crime, a toll-
free statewide hotline, and an extensive training program.
  Before school begins again in the fall, Virginia will train nearly 
3,000 teachers, law enforcement, school resource officers, and other 
school personnel in school safety procedures. There will be four 
separate training programs, which are as follows: (1) a training 
program for school resource officers to prepare them to act as ``first 
responders'' in crisis situations, such as that which occurred in 
Littleton, Colorado; (2) a training program for school staff and local 
law enforcement in communities where there are no school resource 
officers to prepare them for responding to crisis situations; (3) a 
training program for 60 Virginia State Troopers to prepare them to 
support localities should a crisis situation occur; and (4) a training 
program for custodians, cafeteria workers, and other support staff, who 
know the students and who are often the ``eyes and ears'' of the 
school, to prepare them to assist in emergencies.
  I have looked at Virginia's program plan and have found it to be 
innovative and thoughtful. I consider it to be the type of program for 
which we set aside $38 million for community planning and prevention 
activities under the Safe Schools Initiative line item. It is my hope 
that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which 
will be administering these grants, will give careful thought to 
providing the State of Virginia with funds to continue to enhance the 4 
Safe VA project.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with you, Senator Gregg, that the 4 Safe VA 
project is a creative and solid approach to preventing and reacting to 
possible school crises in the State of Virginia. I agree that this is 
the type of program that should be funded under the Safe Schools 
Initiative. I also hope that the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention give full consideration to funding this program.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I very much thank the Senator from South 
Carolina for supporting me and engaging in this colloquy. I look 
forward to working with him in the future on ensuring that our nation's 
schools are safe.


                              census 2000

  Mr. STEVENS. I understand my colleague from New Hampshire, the 
Manager of this bill, Senator Gregg is interested in making comments on 
the conduct of the 2000 Census as it regards Alaska Natives.
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, I would like to join you in remarking on the 2000 
Census and Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to start by referencing a letter received 
from the Alaska Governor, Tony Knowles, which relates certain 
Government Accounting Office findings on the 1990 census. Governor 
Knowles reports that the total Alaskan Native population was 
undercounted by 11,000, resulting in an annual loss of federal funding 
of $162 million over ten years.
  Mr. GREGG. It is important to bring this statistic to the Senate's 
attention to underscore the significance of reform proposals the 
Senator from Alaska will raise here today.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I've often noted on this floor that the 
awesome size of Alaska makes for unique problems in rendering federal 
services. The 2000 Census count is no exception. The sheer physical 
separation of neighboring communities makes communication and 
coordination of planning difficult. The population is dispersed and 
also remote from the hub cities where resources are often concentrated. 
Competing forces and policies demand both centralization and 
decentralization of services.
  Mr. GREGG. My staff and myself have traveled to Alaska at your 
invitation and agree that the distances between communities are a 
challenge in implementing federal programs and directives.
  Mr. STEVENS. The situation is complicated by the diverse ad varied 
social and political institutions set up in localities and at the 
regional level. Alaska Natives by traditional or necessity have chosen 
to organize in various ways to address different circumstances. Often 
federal agencies chose among these groups and are satisfied that they 
have covered their bases with Alaska Natives. I urge the Census to take 
a hard look at the expertise and advice of all Native entities, 
including Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations which by 
virtue of their day-to-day business responsibilities and duties to 
shareholders also have a vigorous pool of human resources to assist in 
public education and input.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree that expediency should not compromise the thorough 
study and development of local and regional solutions to Census 2000 
issues.
  Mr. STEVENS. A necessary first step to addressing these issues, is 
for senior-staff oversight of the Alaska Native Census in Washington, 
DC. I also urge the staffing and funding of an Alaska office of the 
Census.
  Mr. GREGG. I would support this measure.
  Mr. STEVENS. The State of Alaska can do its part. For example, the 
State could set up an Alaska advisory committee on the Census. This 
committee could include representatives of rural

[[Page 17448]]

area, urban areas, Alaska Natives, the military, and municipal and 
state government.
  But I hope Census officials understand that certain agency decisions 
already being pursued need to be reviewed right now before an advisory 
committee can be organized. For example, sub-regional hubs like 
Dillingham are subject only to an update, not a full enumeration under 
the 2000 Census. Also, reportedly, there are no focus groups for the 
many and varied Alaska Native voices to be heard; and it is my 
understanding that groups classified by the federal government as 
minorities have been provided this opportunity in other states. I urge 
the Census to develop a public education campaign that will communicate 
to rural and urban residents the importance of being counted.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree these are important issues.
  Mr. STEVENS. A specific issue that should be addressed in some manner 
is the highly mobile urban-rural population of Alaska Natives. We see 
many families coming to Anchorage on a periodic or seasonal basis, 
sharing common quarters in the city but considering themselves rural 
residents. Likewise, commercial fishermen will split the year between 
two or more residences within the state, and do some subsistence 
fishing at a traditional fish camp for some part of the year near the 
village of their birth. The proper enumeration of Alaska Natives would 
benefit from an effort to reconcile these migration patterns with the 
fixed residency standards used in a number of federal programs and 
formulas.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Alaska and 
will work with him to address his concerns.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague and ask unanimous consent that the 
letter I referenced earlier be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  State of Alaska,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                       Juneau, AK, April 14, 1999.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: I am concerned about an issue 
     critical to our state--the upcoming year 2000 census. When 
     you consider this issue in Congress, I urge you to defend the 
     plan submitted by the experts at the Census Bureau to obtain 
     the fairest and most accurate population counts for use over 
     the next decade.
       As you know, any possible undercount of our population 
     means the loss of vital federal funding for Alaska. In a 
     recent U.S. General Accounting Office report, Alaska in 1990 
     was undercounted by more than 11,000 people with a 10-year 
     fiscal impact of $160 million.
       We have common goals of obtaining our state's fair share of 
     federal resources to help fund our investments in Alaska. We 
     should not let partisan differences over census methodology 
     impact the accuracy of census data and its use in revenue 
     sharing and funding formulas.
       The 1990 Census was the first to be less accurate than its 
     predecessor. I am hopeful Congress will fund the Bureau of 
     Census at a level appropriate to meet U.S. Supreme Court 
     decisions and other mandates necessary to ensure timely 
     completion of the next census. I urge you to do all possible 
     to ensure Alaska receives its fair share of federal funds and 
     to support the efforts to make the 2000 Census as accurate as 
     possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tony Knowles,
                                                         Governor.


       national coral reef institute/noaa national ocean service

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to engage the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee in a 
colloquy. First let me begin by thanking my friends for ensuring the 
committee report included $2 million under the National Ocean Service 
account to support scientific research and coral reef studies. It is my 
understanding this money is to be divided equally between the National 
Coral Reef Institute in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and the University of 
Hawaii. This research is critical to our understanding of the factors 
at work in the degradation of reef ecosystems around the world and I 
appreciate all my colleagues did in Committee to support this effort.
  I say to my colleagues, it is my understanding the Chairman's 
amendment contains additional funding for this account. Is it correct 
to say these funds are in addition to the $2 million currently provided 
by the Committee to the National Coral Reef Institute and the 
University of Hawaii?
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Florida is correct. The funds included in 
the Chairman's amendment are in addition to the $2 million provided to 
the two institutions you mentioned. Senator Hollings, is this also your 
understanding?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, the Chairman is correct.
  Mr. MACK. I thank my colleagues for this clarification and for their 
support of coral reef research.


                       noaa activities in florida

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee if he would consent to discuss with me for a moment two 
issues of concern to me with respect to NOAA activities in Florida.
  Mr. GREGG. I am pleased to join my colleague from Florida in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. MACK. First, let me say I appreciate my friend from New 
Hampshire's hard work for the strong support he's given to the State of 
Florida in the bill before us today. But I would like to bring to the 
Chairman's attention an initiative undertaken by Florida's top three 
research universities: the University of Florida, Florida State 
University and the University of Miami. These three institutions came 
together to ensure their extensive capabilities in the areas of marine, 
atmosphere and climate prediction research were focused on the needs of 
the entire Southeast region. They have especially come together to 
study the El Nino phenomenon. Their effort has been recognized by NOAA 
and they have become one of the agency's first regional assessment 
centers.
  My concern, Mr. President, is about the possibility that NOAA may 
reduce resources available to Florida and this valuable research 
initiative. Clearly, Florida and the Southeast region are significantly 
impacted by climatic developments. A strong and continued investment in 
Florida and the region--along with a balanced investment in the 
regional assessment centers--is essential. I would ask the support of 
the Committee to continue the base level funding of this important 
collaborative effort. The institutions had been receiving approximately 
$500,000 per year through the Office of Global Programs, and I would 
like the Chairman's assurances that this level of funding should and 
will be continued during the next fiscal year.
  Mr. GREGG. I know how important this initiative has been to the 
Senator from Florida. I can assure the Senator that it is the 
Committee's intent that the base-level funding you indicated be 
preserved in the next fiscal year. Did the Senator from Florida have an 
additional concern?
  Mr. MACK. Yes. I know the chairman is aware of the Florida 
Congressional delegation's strong commitment to the restoration of the 
Everglades and Florida Bay. I have heard some concern, however, that 
internal reallocations within NOAA could result in at least a $1 
million reduction in South Florida based Florida Bay activities. The 
administration asked for significant funding of the Everglades-Florida 
Bay initiative in both FY 99 and FY 2000 through the Coastal Ocean 
Science Program. But the concern I'm hearing from Florida indicates 
that NOAA may reallocate funds away from this initiative and toward 
other programs and purposes. I would like the Chairman to join me in 
stressing to the agency that funds in this bill currently allocated for 
critical Florida Bay initiatives not be depleted. I would like the 
Chairman to join me in working to ensure the NOAA contribution to the 
interagency program for Florida and adjacent coastal marine waters is 
continued at the current levels.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator from Florida's comments. The 
Committee supports and shares your commitment to Everglades and Florida 
Bay restoration; specifically with respect to the funds allocated to 
the initiative funded by the Coastal Ocean Science Program.
  Mr. MACK. I appreciate my friend's comments with respect to these two

[[Page 17449]]

issues. I thank him again for his continued support of Florida 
priorities.


    the las vegas special police enforcement and eradication program

  Mr. REID. Mr. President. I take this opportunity to thank Chairman 
Gregg and Senator Hollings for their consideration of my request to 
provide $1 million in funds to the Las Vegas Special Police Enforcement 
and Eradication Program. Methamphetamine manufacturing, use and 
trafficking is a serious problem that deserves the highest priority, 
and I appreciate the leadership of the Chairman and the Ranking Member 
in this effort.
  At this time, I would like to make a technical clarification of my 
request. I ask the Chairman and the Ranking Member, if, in making this 
appropriation, it is their understanding that of the $1 million 
provided, $500,000 is to be directed to the Las Vegas Police Department 
to be used for their Methamphetamine Eradication Initiative, while 
$500,000 is to be directed to the North Las Vegas Police Department for 
their Methamphetamine Eradication Initiative?
  Mr. GREGG. The senior Senator from Nevada is correct. Of the $1 
million provided, $500,000 is to be directed to the Las Vegas Police 
Department to be used for their Methamphetamine Eradication Initiative, 
and $500,000 is to be directed to the North Las Vegas Police Department 
for their Methamphetamine Eradication Initiative.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur with the Chairman.
  Mr. REID. I thank the chairman and ranking member.


  women's business center program at the small business administration

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, in a 
colloquy.
  I want to begin by commending you, Senator Gregg, and your Ranking 
Member, Senator Hollings, for the hard work you have done in crafting 
this Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill. 
You have done a great job in funding the priorities identified by the 
Committee in this bill. You have been particularly helpful to me in my 
efforts to curb the trafficking of Mexican black tar heroin in my home 
state of New Mexico.
  A separate issue of particular importance in my home state is the 
Women's Business Center program at the Small Business Administration. 
In this bill, you have funded the Administration's request of $9 
million for this program, and I applaud you for meeting the President's 
request.
  Unfortunately, the President's request fails to address an important 
issue for the future of the Women's Business Center program. 
Particularly, the President's request does not take into account the 
need to allow existing WBCs to re-compete for federal funds once their 
initial five-year funding stream expires. So, many existing centers 
with outstanding track records of facilitating the growth of women-
owned businesses and providing technical assistance to fledgling 
companies will go unfunded, while the SBA allows new, untested centers 
to open in other areas. Sacrificing the successful, existing centers to 
replace them with new, untested ones seems like bad policy. I think we 
need to open more new Women's Business Centers, but we also need to 
help the existing ones continue their work.
  Senator Bond, the distinguished Chairman of the Small Business 
Committee, Senator Kerry and I, along with a group of 25 bi-partisan 
co-sponsors, have introduced S. 791, the Women's Business Center 
Sustainability Act. This bill would increase the authorization for the 
Women's Business Center program to $12 million and allow existing 
centers to re-compete for up to 40 percent of the federal funds 
available under the program. Is the Chairman of the Subcommittee aware 
of this bill?
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of this effort and am told that the Small 
Business Committee will work to report the bill to the full Senate, 
with the hope that the bill will pass later this year.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As the Chairman may know, an additional $2 million in 
funding this year would be critical to the effort to allow existing 
centers to re-compete for federal assistance. Without this additional 
funding, many existing centers will be forced to close their doors. 
Assuming that S. 791 passes both houses of Congress and is signed by 
the President later this year, I hope that the Chairman will be willing 
to find a way to provide this additional $2 million for the program 
once this bill gets to conference.
  Mr. GREGG. I share your concerns about allowing existing Women's 
Business Centers to re-compete for federal funds. If the Small Business 
Committee and the Senate approve S. 791 before the conference on this 
bill, I will make every effort to provide the additional funding you 
have requested.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and I yield the 
floor.


                           shoreline mapping

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, on shoreline mapping.
  Mr. GREGG. I am more than happy to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the issue, which I wish to discuss, is 
the mapping of our country's shoreline. As the chairman knows, the 
National Ocean Service runs a Coastal Mapping Project which is 
responsible for mapping the nearly 95,000 miles of the US shoreline in 
an accurate, consistent, tide-coordinated, and up-to-date manner.
  I'm concerned that nearly 30 percent of the US shoreline has not been 
mapped. In addition, one-quarter of what has been mapped as mapped 
prior to 1970 with severely outdated technology. Since this data is 
used as the official shoreline on NOAA's nautical charts and is used by 
the government and the private sectors, it is important to keep up with 
the changes that result from coastal development and natural processes, 
which can be drastic.
  This year, there was an increase over both FY99 funding levels and 
the administration's FY00 request within the Committee's recommendation 
for the ``Mapping and Charting'' account. Would you agree, Mr. 
Chairman, that it is the recommendation of the Committee that $2 
million of those funds can be used for shoreline mapping within the 
Coastal Mapping Project.
  Mr. GREGG. I do agree with my esteemed colleague from Maryland that 
$2 million of the funds within the ``Mapping and Charting'' account can 
be used for shoreline mapping.


                      ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE FUNDING

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into 
a colloquy with the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, 
regarding the $1 million appropriation for the Western Wisconsin 
Methamphetamine Law Enforcement Initiative in S. 1217.
  As the Senator from Wisconsin knows, the domestic manufacture and 
importation of Methamphetamine, also know as Meth, has become a 
continuing public health threat to the United States and most recently 
to the Midwest. Senate Kohl, what is the extent of the Meth problem 
within the State of Wisconsin? Also, would you please describe how the 
proposed $1 million will be used to address the problem?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for 
his questions, his acknowledgment of the severity of the Meth problem 
faced by rural communities and cities in the Midwest and throughout our 
country, and his active support for increased funding to combat Meth. 
In my own State of Wisconsin, criminal justice officials recognized 
early on that we had to develop a strategy and consolidate our 
enforcement and prevention efforts to limit the spread of the Meth 
epidemic that has been invading our Western Wisconsin borders from 
Minnesota and Iowa since the mid 1990's. Today, the number of Meth-
related incidents is increasing. The Wisconsin State Laboratory 
reported increases of Meth analysis from 42 examinations in 1996 to 112 
examinations in 1998. In 1998 alone, the Wisconsin Department of 
Narcotics Enforcement opened 90 investigations regarding Meth and 
prosecuted 40 individuals. In Wisconsin, Meth users generally range 
from 18 to

[[Page 17450]]

25, and recently there was even a disturbing report of Meth trafficking 
in a rural high school.
  With the escalation of Meth trafficking, in February 1997 Wisconsin 
law enforcement officials organized a coordinated enforcement and 
prevention initiative among local, state, and federal law enforcement 
partners to target Meth traffickers. This major effort also addressed 
the need for training to prevent the potential health threat from toxic 
and flammable chemicals in clandestine Meth labs. Funding for this 
continuing intiative has been raised from a variety of sources, 
including the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance and the State 
Attorney General.
  Recently, representatives from Wisconsin agricultural associations 
have reached out to their members and communities to educate the public 
about the dangers of Anhydrous ammonia, a precursor used in the crude 
production of Meth. These associations are now working with law 
enforcement as well.
  And this May, the State Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for 
the Western District of Wisconsin sponsored three Meth symposiums to 
educate and train members of the criminal justice system.
  The $1 million appropriated for the Western Wisconsin Methamphetamine 
Initiative will help build on these efforts and promote more 
coordination of anti-Meth activities. It will be used jointly by the 
Office of Attorney General (through the Division of Narcotics 
Enforcement) and the Office of Justice Assistance (under the direction 
of the Governor) to support a plan developed in coordination with each 
other to continue combatting Meth production, distribution and use and 
for policing initiatives in ``hot spots'' of Meth trafficking activity. 
Part of this funding will also be used for community and school-based 
Meth education and prevention awareness programs.
  Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina--and our 
Chairman, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg--
for their commitment to addressing the Meth problem.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for 
this fame and effort in this very significant issue.


                            funding for dea

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with Senator Gregg on funding for the Drug Enforcement Agency and on 
national issues concerning local law enforcement training skills to 
combat methamphetamine abuse in rural communities, small cities, mid-
size communities and on activities to alleviate the growing financial 
burden resulting from the cleanup of clandestine laboratories and other 
drug-related hazardous waste.
  I say to Senators Stevens and Gregg that Senators Kyle, DeWine, Kohl, 
Hagel, and I have offered a bill, the Rural Methamphetamine Use 
Response Act of 1999, that would provide additional funding to combat 
methamphetamine production and abuse, and for other purposes.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. As the Senator knows, we have been working on this bill 
and on others to ensure adequate funding for our nation's counter 
narcotics efforts. I appreciate the committee's funding efforts to 
specifically address the national methamphetamine issue and to combat 
methamphetamine production, distribution, and use. I am also aware that 
we face tough budget decisions and we need to balance many program 
needs within a balanced budget.
  Mr. GREGG. We have had to make a lot of tough decisions in this bill 
while trying to ensure that we meet the needs of many critical 
programs. The subcommittee has worked earnestly to be fair, and we have 
had to make tough choices.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate their efforts. I know that the 
subcommittee has allotted the Drug Enforcement Agency the tools it 
needs to properly wage the war on illegal drugs. I also know that the 
subcommittee has added personnel and resources to the western and 
central regions of the United States to focus primarily on the 
methamphetamine problems in those geographic regions of the country. 
However, as you may know, methamphetamine abuse and production across 
the United States has forced law enforcement agencies to address 
challenges that exceed the many years of experience of the State and 
local law enforcement personnel within such agencies. Methamphetamine 
affects smaller communities and rural areas disproportionately. In many 
cases, these communities lack the investigative and technical skills, 
and resources to confront major criminal gangs or the environmental 
hazards caused by meth product.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the training challenges state and local law 
enforcement personnel have had regarding methamphetamine production and 
handling of these explosive chemicals involved in the methamphetamine 
production process and Senator Hollings and I have worked to address 
those needs.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Since the Senator from New Hampshire is aware of the 
training challenges of state and local law enforcement agencies, the 
financial burden of meth cleanup, and the volatile properties of meth, 
from the funding provided to DEA for methamphetamine initiatives, I 
hope, where possible, that funding be set aside within the final bill 
directing DEA to establish a select cadre of Special Agents with 
Spanish language capabilities to work with local law enforcement 
agencies across the United States on matters relating to combating 
methamphetamine-related drug trafficking. I also ask within the funding 
allotment for methamphetamine training initiatives, funding for DEA 
staffing at appropriate training facilities for purposes of providing 
coherent, essential, and sustained clandestine laboratory training to 
State and local law enforcement personnel, and if possible, funding for 
DEA to provide these personnel with the skills necessary for 
clandestine laboratory recertification.
  Mr. GREGG. I share in the Senators' concerns for the need for 
sustained and adequate funding nationally to combat methamphetamine 
abuse. I will work to ensure, where possible within the funding 
allotments for methamphetamine initiatives, that the final bill will 
support the concerns you have raised.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank Senators Gregg and Hollings for their 
willingness to work with me and my colleagues on funding this needed 
request.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for recognizing the 
needs of Missouri law enforcement in this bill. As he knows well, the 
State of Missouri is experiencing a law enforcement crisis of epidemic 
proportions as the methamphetamine trade has exploded in recent years. 
My colleague, Senator Gregg, as seen to it that the DEA has increased 
resources to assist state and local law enforcement as they take on 
these drug dealers.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I too thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his 
attention to this problem. I would like to bring a matter to the 
attention of the Chairman. Under the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund 
section of this bill, the Chairman has included $6 million for the 
Midwest Methamphetamine Initiative. The language states that the 
funding is to be used by the Drug Enforcement Administration to train 
state and local officers on the proper recognition, collection, removal 
and destruction of methamphetamine and materials seized in clandestine 
labs. Is my colleague familiar with the title?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, I am.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I have heard repeatedly from local law enforcement 
officers, as has Senator Bond, that DEA provides excellent training and 
prepares well officers to raid, bust and clean up these labs. I know 
that the Chairman is also aware of the funding required for the DEA to 
assist state and local law enforcement with the clean up of these labs 
after they have been busted.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware that resources are necessary so that these 
sites can be cleaned up adequately.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. It is my understanding from local law enforcement 
officers that DEA funds are needed not only in the training of state 
and local

[[Page 17451]]

law enforcement officers, but also in the removal and destruction of 
the materials seized in the labs. Is it the Chairman's understanding 
that the resources made available to the Midwest Methamphetamine 
Initiative will also be available for the DEA to assist state and local 
law enforcement in the clean up methamphetamine labs?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, I am aware that the needs to combat the growing meth 
problem are pressing and that funds made available to the DEA may be 
used not only to train state and local officers on the proper 
recognition and collection of meth labs, but also in the removal 
destruction of the materials seized in the labs.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chairman for his assistance.
  Mr. BOND. I too thank the Chairman for his assistance in this matter. 
DEA's participation in fighting the methampetamine epidemic is 
essential to state and local law enforcement. As my colleague stated, 
the DEA provides training for local officers that well prepares them to 
handle and dispose of the toxic material that they encounter while 
busting clandestine methamphetamine labs. The DEA also has an important 
role in the clean up process. There were over 800 clandestine 
methamphetetamine labs seized in the State of Missouri last year. Most 
of the labs were busted in rural areas and smaller towns. These towns 
have police forces and sheriffs offices of a very limited sizes. DEA's 
presence and help in rural areas is essential to ensure that these 
communities are not overwhelmed by the drug and the havoc in this wake. 
If this menace is to be brought under control, local law enforcement 
must have the assistance of the DEA. The Senator from New Hampshire has 
been a good friend to Missouri law enforcement as he has worked closely 
with us in recent years to ensure that the DEA has the resources to 
focus on this problem and I appreciate him clarifying the use of those 
designated funds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, I have spent years 
addressing the drug problem that confronts our nation. I personally 
have visited drug source and transit countries throughout the region 
with the objective of searching for ways to resolve and overcome this 
escalating problem. As a result of many hearings and meetings on this 
important matter, last year Senator DeWine and I introduced the Western 
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, a $2.7 billion--3 year authorization 
for enhanced drug eradication and interdiction efforts. We were 
successful in getting this legislation passed into law and providing a 
$800 million down payment for this bill. We must continue to fund this 
important law.
  Recognizing that US government resources are limited, it is important 
to fund agencies that can get a huge return on a small investment. the 
Drug Enforcement Administration indeed is an agency that demonstrates 
this objective on a daily basis. With limited funding, the DEA is a 
vital source not only for our law enforcement activities, but for other 
nations as well. Relying primarily on manpower, the DEA has 
demonstrated how effective an agency with limited funding can produce 
significant results. Last year, the DEA seized more drugs and arrested 
more traffickers than ever before. They play an integral part in 
training foreign law enforcement officials overseas to help them help 
us keep drugs out of our country. they do a great service to our 
nation.
  This past March, Senators DeWine and I sent a letter to the Chairman 
and Ranking Member of the Commerce, State, Justice Subcommittee, 
calling for building on this year's investment in the DEA and 
requesting additional funding for 300 new DEA agent, analysts and 
support personnel, and for other DEA initiatives. This request is 
consistent with DEA initiatives outlined in the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act. Specifically, 16 senators--both Republicans and 
Democrats--co-signed the letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member.
  I thank the Subcommittee for addressing our needs in our request. The 
Subcommittee earmarked $17.5 million for new hires for DEA agents, 
analysts, and support staff. I recognize this was a difficult task 
given the tight budget caps confronting this Subcommittee and the other 
Appropriations subcommittees. While I appreciate the tremendous efforts 
made by the Subcommittee and their staff to earmark money for new DEA 
hires within their account, I am concerned that there isn't any 
additional funding for the DEA. The DEA will have to sacrifice other 
important and necessary programs for these new hires.
  I realize that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Commerce, 
Justice, State Subcommittee are trying to complete the bill this 
evening. I had intended to offer an amendment to request $24 million in 
additional DEA funding for new agents, analysts and support staff 
hires. After talking to the Subcommittee leadership, however, I have 
instead agreed not to offer my amendment and would commit to working 
with the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee to help find a way to 
provide additional funding to the DEA during conference of this bill.
  Mr. President, I see Senator DeWine on the floor and understand that 
he too would like to say a few words on this matter. I yield the floor 
to my distinguished colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia for yielding the floor. I commend him for all his tireless 
efforts in finding ways to combat the drug war. Mr. President, I 
previously gave a floor statement on the importance of the role of the 
Drug Enforcement Administration in keeping drugs off our streets. I 
have traveled with the DEA to various countries throughout the 
hemisphere and have seen them first hand in action. the DEA does a 
tremendous service to our country both inside and outside our border 
and should be commended. I agree with Senator Coverdell on the need for 
additional funding for the DEA. I too believe that the DEA is 
underfunded and should receive increased funding, particularly if there 
are additional resources available at a later date.
  Mr. President, I see the Chairman of the Commerce, State, Justice 
Subcommittee on the floor. I speak for Senator Coverdell when I say 
that it is my hope that we can work together with the Subcommittee 
leadership to help provide additional funding for the DEA during 
conference, or in the future even that there may be additional 
available funding.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank Senator Coverdell and Senator DeWine for their 
statements. I have listened very carefully to their remarks, and I 
commend them for his tireless efforts in supporting anti-drug efforts, 
here in the United States and throughout the world. I would like to 
assure both Senator Coverdell and Senator DeWine that I will give every 
possible consideration to their request when we go to conference and in 
the event that additional funding may become available for FY 2000 in 
the future.
  Mr. DeWine. I thank my distinguished friend from New Hampshire and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I too thank my distinguished friend from New 
Hampshire, and I yield the floor.


                     definition of public aircraft

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am prepared to offer an amendment with 
my distinguished colleague Senator DeWine to the Commerce, State, 
Justice appropriations bill that will help law enforcement officers in 
their efforts to protect our citizens. We believe that after the 
Congress passed Public Law 103-411, it had unintended consequences that 
have imposed unnecessary costs on state and local governments. Under 
this law, aircraft belonging to law enforcement agencies are considered 
``commercial'' if costs incurred from flying missions to support 
neighboring jurisdictions are reimbursed. Multiple governmental 
agencies have recognized this problem, with the support of the Federal 
Aviation Administration, they have jointly drafted corrective language 
for this problem. Before proceeding, however, I would like to inquire 
as to the plans for consideration of this issue by the Commerce 
Committee this year. I wonder if my distinguished colleagues from the

[[Page 17452]]

state of Arizona and South Carolina--the Chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate Committee on Commerce, which has oversight on these 
matters--could engage Senator DeWine and me in a discussion regarding 
this matter.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be pleased to engage in a 
discussion with the distinguished Senators from Florida and Ohio on the 
substance of this matter.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his time. In the 
state of Ohio the Bureau of Criminal Justice Services uses aircraft for 
drug eradication efforts. Under current law Ohio is forced to use 
private planes for this mission at a considerable cost, rather than 
their own surplus aircraft. Mr. Chairman is it your assessment that 
current law defining public aircraft places unnecessary restrictions 
and costly burdens on law enforcement agencies who operate public 
aircraft?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would agree that as the current law is written a number 
of our law enforcement agencies that operate public aircraft are faced 
with burdens in being reimbursed for the costs associated from flying 
missions in support of neighboring jurisdictions. The Senate Commerce 
Committee intends to act to review the matter and work to develop 
legislation that will help law enforcement.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senators from Arizona and South Carolina agree 
to review this matter on the FAA reauthorization bill and by the end of 
year?
  Mr. McCAIN. As I have indicated to my colleague, I will as the 
Chairman of the Commerce Committee review this matter by the end of the 
year and work with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, 
in a good faith effort to resolve this issue by the end of the year.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Arizona 
and look forward to working with him on this issue this year.
  Mr. DeWINE. I want to thank Senators McCain and Hollings for their 
support on this issue. I look forward to working with them on this 
issue.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I also want to thank Senators McCain and Hollings for 
their support on this issue. I should also thank the law enforcement 
organizations that have strongly supported this amendment. 
Specifically, the National Sheriff's Association, Airborne Law 
Enforcement Association, International Association of Chiefs Of Police, 
Florida Sheriff's Association, and the California State Sheriff's 
Associations. Mr. President, in light of what the distinguished 
Chairman and ranking member have said, I withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished 
colleagues, Senators Graham and DeWine, to support an amendment to the 
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill that will assist our local 
law enforcement agencies to respond in a timely fashion to life or 
death situations.
  Sheriffs and police chiefs in my state and around this country have 
found that their hands are tied when it comes to sharing helicopters or 
other public aircraft with neighboring jurisdictions. The Milwaukee 
County Sheriff's Department recently became the first local law 
enforcement agency in Wisconsin to acquire a helicopter. Neighboring 
jurisdictions would like to borrow that helicopter and reimburse the 
Milwaukee County Sheriff for the cost of their use of that helicopter. 
The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department is perfectly willing, indeed 
eager, to share its helicopter but it can't easily do so. Under current 
law, in order for the assisting agency to receive a cost reimbursement 
from the neighboring jurisdiction, the neighboring sheriff or police 
chief must first exhaust the possibility that a private commercial 
helicopter is available. Even when the neighboring law enforcement 
agency is faced with a serious imminent threat to life or property, the 
law requires the neighboring sheriff or police chief to first determine 
whether a privately operated helicopter is available. Mr. President, 
this law is absurd and puts everyone's safety at risk.
  Law enforcement agencies use helicopters for a variety of reasons--to 
chase a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime, in search and rescue 
missions, to observe crowds in public gatherings, to transport 
prisoners, and to detect marijuana fields. Current law, however, stands 
in the way of cooperation between agencies to carry out these important 
law enforcement functions. Cooperation between law enforcement agencies 
is good. It saves time, money, resources and maybe even lives. We 
should do all we can to promote law enforcement cooperation.
  Saving lives and maintaining law and order is delayed if we require 
sheriffs and police chiefs to determine first whether they can find a 
private helicopter. Public safety is also jeopardized because private 
commercial pilots are likely not trained law enforcement personnel with 
experience in sensitive and sometimes dangerous situations. In 
addition, a commercial helicopter is most likely not equipped with the 
instrumentation and tools needed by law enforcement officers to do 
their job. But if we allow sheriffs and police chiefs to share their 
aircraft with neighboring jurisdictions without first exhausting 
private avenues, law enforcement response is far more likely to be 
swift and sure.
  Current law effectively prevents law enforcement from borrowing a 
helicopter or other aircraft from a neighboring agency. The law must be 
changed and this amendment does the job. This amendment modifies the 
definition of ``public aircraft'' so that law enforcement agencies no 
longer need to make an attempt to find a private helicopter operator 
before using a neighboring jurisdiction's helicopter. This amendment is 
supported by the National Sheriffs' Association, as well as numerous 
police chiefs and sheriffs across the country.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators McCain and Hollings, 
for working with us on this issue. They raised some concerns, but, as 
described in the colloquy, they have given us assurances that they will 
work to resolve the urgent needs of law enforcement either on the 
Federal Aviation Administration appropriations bill or by the end of 
the year. I welcome their recognition of the magnitude of this problem 
to law enforcement and their willingness to work with us on this issue.
  Mr. President, we demand that law enforcement act quickly and 
professionally to life or death situations, but we're not always giving 
them the tools they need to do their job. We must do our part. I urge 
my colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to change the law and 
give the sheriffs and police chiefs in Wisconsin and across this 
country the tools they need to keep our communities safe and secure.
  I yield the floor.


                 Barry University Intercultural Center

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the 
subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding Barry University in Miami 
Shores, Florida. Barry University has a strong history of addressing 
important Miami community issues like urbanization, ethnic diversity, 
community development and cultural understanding. Recently the 
University announced the planning of an Intercultural Community Center 
which is designed to promote necessary neighborhood and small business 
revitalization. The facility will provide conference space, meeting 
rooms, executive seminars and continuing education courses related to 
international business and commerce.
  It is my understanding Barry University will be requesting an 
Economic Development Administration grant for this project from the 
Department of Commerce during the next fiscal year. I would appreciate 
the Chairman's support in recommending the Department of Commerce give 
strong consideration to the merits of University's grant application.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Florida for bringing this issue 
to my attention. The Committee is aware of Barry University's efforts 
and I would strongly urge the Economic Development Administration to 
consider its application within applicable procedures and guidelines 
and provide a grant if warranted.
  Mr. MACK. I appreciate my friend from New Hampshire's comments on 
this important initiative and for all he

[[Page 17453]]

and the Senator from South Carolina have done in this bill for the 
citizens of Florida.


                             epscot program

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gregg, to engage in a colloquy on a 
matter of extreme importance to my State and a number of others, and 
that is the need for more funding for the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Technology, a program of the Department of 
Commerce's Technology Administration.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator 
from Louisiana and engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, as you know, technology is fueling the 
tremendous economic growth the nation is currently experiencing. 
However, as is frequently the case, rural states are struggling to 
participate in this new economy. The EPSCoT program is a competitive 
matching grants program that reaches beyond the traditional recipients 
of federal research and development funding. This pioneering initiative 
brings together the interest of economic development, science and 
technology, university research, and private business. Although the 
program is only a couple of years old, it has met with very high 
enthusiasm in areas such as Louisiana and New Hampshire.
  Mr. President, there is important work being done through the EPSCoT 
program. This is a flexible program designed to assist states. 
Applications may be submitted by state, local, or Indian tribal 
governments, community colleges, universities, non-profit 
organizations, private organizations, technology business centers, 
industry councils or any combination of these entities from the 
eligible states. The eligible states are those that have received less 
in federal research and development funding than the majority of the 
states. Therefore, the program is carefully designed to benefit those 
states that need more assistance in developing a high-tech economy.
  Mr. President, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
also a part of the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, 
runs the Advanced Technology Program. The ATP provides matching funds 
for high-risk research with broad economic benefits. As a part of the 
program, grants occasionally are reclaimed by the ATP due to business 
failures and other such circumstances. These reclaimed monies are used 
by the ATP to fund new awards. The Committee has provided in the bill 
that the ATP may use these ``carry over'' funds for new awards in 
Fiscal Year 2000.
  Does the Senator from New Hampshire concur that it is the intent of 
the committee to direct $2.0 million in funds provided to NIST for new 
ATP awards under the provisions dealing with the use of carry-over 
funds be used for new grants under the Technology Administration's 
EPSCoT program?
  Mr. GREGG. It is the intent of the Committee to direct $2.0 million 
in carry-over funds for the ATP be used for new grants under the 
Technology Administration's EPSCoT program. I look forward to working 
with the Senator from Louisiana to ensure that the $2.0 million in ATP 
carry-over funds are provided to the EPSCoT program for new grants in 
Fiscal Year 2000.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, does the Senator from South Carolina 
concur?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, it is the Committee's intent that $2.0 million in 
ATP carry-over funds be provided to the EPSCoT program for FY 2000 
grants.


  Distribution of technology funds to Burlington, Rutland, and Saint 
                               Johnsbury

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator 
Gregg for all his work on crafting the Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations bill. In this time of tight 
budgetary caps, and with the many requests by members, Senator Gregg 
has worked hard to get the bill through the Appropriations Committee 
and to the floor of the Senate.
  I would especially like to thank Senator Gregg for recognizing the 
need of three Vermont towns to upgrade, modernize and acquire 
technology for their police departments. Allowing these police 
departments to improve their technology will permit them to increase 
the efficiency and effectiveness of the services they provide. 
Reflecting the needs of the police departments, the $1.5 million should 
be divided on the following basis: one-half ($750,000) to the 
Burlington Police Department, one-third ($500,000) to the Rutland 
Police Department, and one-sixth ($250,000) to the St. Johnsbury Police 
Department. Again, I appreciate Senator Gregg's help to address the 
technology problems these town's police departments are facing, and I 
look forward to working with him to get this important appropriations 
bill signed into law.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Jeffords bringing the 
needs of these three police departments to my attention, and will work 
with him to ensure that the money for technology grants to these three 
Vermont towns are distributed in the way he has described.


                   International War Crimes Tribunals

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of 
the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee in a colloquy.
  I am deeply concerned that the Subcommittee bill does not include the 
full Administration request for funding of the International War Crimes 
Tribunals.
  We are all horrified by the crimes against humanity that occurred in 
Kosovo. Recent reports state that as many as 10,000 people were 
murdered. An untold number of women were raped. Hundreds of thousands 
of people were driven from their homes. The War Crimes Tribunal needs 
adequate funding to gather evidence, to pursue and to try those who are 
responsible for these crimes against humanity.
  Congress provided additional funding for the War Crimes Tribunals in 
the Supplemental Appropriations bill. These funds were necessary to 
provide emergency assistance to the War Crimes Tribunal for the former 
Yugoslavia. Before we provided this funding, Chief Justice Louise 
Arbour said that she had only seven investigators available for Kosovo. 
However, full funding for the War Crimes Tribunal is necessary for 
fiscal year 2000, if we are to continue ongoing investigations in 
Bosnia or Rwanda.
  The Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Committee 
is a strong supporter of law enforcement--both in the United States and 
abroad. I ask him to join me in supporting the full request for funding 
of the International War Crimes Tribunals during the Conference on the 
Commerce, Justice and State Department Appropriations bill.
  Mr. GREGG. I share the Senator's strong support for the work of the 
International War Crimes Tribunals. The Subcommittee, with the Senators 
help, provided more than $40 million for the War Crimes Tribunals in 
the fiscal year 1999 bill. The full committee, again with the Senator's 
assistance, made an additional $28 million available to the tribunals 
as part of the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental that passed in 
May. Just two weeks ago, the Subcommittee approved yet another $2 
million for FBI forensic teams investigating massacre sites in Kosovo 
under the tribunal's direction. I look forward to working with the 
Senator during the Conference on this bill to ensure that full funding 
is provided.


                     child abuse prevention program

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Gregg and his 
staff for working with me to provide funding for two important 
initiatives in my home State of Vermont. It is my understanding that 
within funds provided to Department of Justice of Juvenile Justice 
Programs, the FY 2000 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and 
Related Agencies Appropriation Bill provides $100,000 for the 
establishment of a teen center in Colchester, Vermont and $100,000 to 
Prevent Child Abuse-VT to evaluate the SAFE-T program, a comprehensive 
child abuse prevention program for middle school communities.
  There is a great need for a community center with a focus on youth in 
the Town of Colchester. Currently after

[[Page 17454]]

school gathering places for Colchester youth are limited to local 
restaurants and supermarkets. This project has strong local support. 
Last October, a group of local citizens formed a non-profit 
organization called the ``Colchester Community Youth Project'' and 
purchased an available property in the town for use as a teen center. 
The Town of Colchester hopes to buy the building from the non-profit, 
and then plans to renovate the 4,500 square foot main building to house 
a youth center/multi use space, offices, and a branch of the local 
public library.
  For over four years, Prevent Child Abuse-VT has funded, developed and 
piloted SAFE-T, a comprehensive health education and abuse prevention 
program for middle school communities. Students learn victim an 
victimizer prevention, build healthy relationship skills and experience 
personal and social change. Parents, guardians, school staff and 
service providers participate in training, dialog assignments, 
classroom presentations and school community change projects. SAFE-T 
research-based and classroom tested with over 500 students.
  More work, however, needs to be done to evaluate the success of the 
SAFE-T program. Dr. David Finkelhor, Co-Director of the Family Violence 
Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, plans to embark 
shortly on a three-year scientific evaluation of the SAFE-T program. I 
am very pleased that this appropriation will enable this evaluation to 
move forward.
  The sexual abuse of and by children is now at epidemic proportions in 
America. The SAFE-T Program is an excellent resource in helping early 
adolescents develop the skills they need to grow safe, free of abuse. 
This program offers great promise as a national model for comprehensive 
abuse prevention programs. A thorough scientific evaluation will ensure 
that this research-based initiative can be proven effective and 
disseminated properly.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I applaud Senator Jeffords' work on these 
important issues. He is correct that the FY 2000 Commerce, Justice, 
State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill provides 
$100,000 for the establishment of a teen center in Colchester, Vermont 
and $100,000 to Prevent Child Abuse-VT to evaluate the SAFE-T program, 
a comprehensive child abuse prevention program for middle school 
communities.


                     department of justice funding

  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 heatlh 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 to 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 on page 15 and on 
page 25 of Senate Report 106-76 relating to funding for tobacco 
litigation?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.


              Community-Based Habitat Restoration Program

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, with the indulgence of my distinguished 
colleagues from New Hampshire and South Carolina, I would like to bring 
to their attention one of the Federal government's most successful 
restoration programs for marine and estuarine habitats--the Community-
Based Habitat Restoration Program started by the National Marine 
Fisheries Service in 1995. This program promotes restoration of 
fisheries habitats around the country through voluntary partnerships 
among state and local governments, the conservation community, industry 
and businesses, and the academic community. Since its inception, more 
than 60 projects have been funded. There is a minimum one-to-one match 
required, but non-Federal parties typically contribute three dollars, 
and often as much as ten dollars, for every one spent by NMFS. Indeed, 
over the life of the program, Federal funding totaled $1.2 million, 
with $6.1 million raised in non-Federal funds.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the program and agree with the Senator from 
Rhode Island. It is an excellent program that supports worthwhile 
projects with limited funding. Last year, $450,000 was appropriated for 
the program.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Unfortunately, S. 1217, as approved by the Committee, did 
not provide any funding for the program for FY 2000.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct. The Administration's budget proposal 
included the program as part of a larger and new initiative that did 
not receive any funds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to request that the distinguished manager of 
the bill provide some funding for the program for FY 2000, so that it 
can continue to build on its past success. Numerous groups, in 
particular the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the 
FishAmerica Foundation, rely on grants from the program for their 
restoration efforts, and they would be hardpressed to continue these 
efforts if the program were not funded. As it is, about 145 projects in 
1999 alone are going unfunded due to lack of funds, of which seven are 
in my own state of Rhode Island.
  Mr. GREGG. I am pleased to consider the request of the Senator for 
Rhode Island. I have discussed this with my distinguished colleague 
from South Carolina, and we have agreed to a provision in the manager's 
amendment that directs NMFS to take $1 million from available funds 
within its budget and apply it to the Community-Based Habitat 
Restoration Program.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with my distinguished colleagues from Rhode 
Island and New Hampshire, and am pleased to support the program. The 
manager's amendment ensures that the program will not only be 
continued, but will receive some additional funding.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wholeheartedly thank my colleagues from New Hampshire 
and South Carolina. It is always a pleasure working with them, 
especially on a worthwhile endeavor such as this.


                    arms control treaty verification

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague, the Subcommittee Chairman, regarding a specific funding 
provision in this bill within arms control treaty verification. I have 
been concerned for some time that our arms control efforts have been 
focused on treaty negotiation at the expense of treaty verification. 
The Committee report expressed the same concern. As a result, 
technological advances in arms control verification made at the 
national laboratories are not being fully applied or exploited. 
Accordingly, this bill provides $10,000,000 for this purpose. I want

[[Page 17455]]

to be absolutely precise about what the Committee has directed in this 
area so I will quote from the Committee's report accompanying this 
bill. The report states the following: ``the Committee recommendation 
provides a $10,000,000 increase over fiscal year 1999 for verification 
technology.''
  Mr. President, I think the plain meaning of this language could not 
be any clearer and I think my colleague the Subcommittee Chairman would 
agree with me. That is why I was puzzled to hear from my staff that, in 
informal conversations, State Department personnel have expressed 
confusion over how to interpret this language. If my understanding is 
correct, some in the State Department have expressed their belief that 
the $10,000,000 increase is intended to be applied first to the 
President's priorities for increased funding--costing approximately 
$8,000,000--and that only the remaining $2,000,000, left over after the 
President's priorities are funded, would be applied to the treaty 
verification work.
  Mr. President, I certainly hope that the information I have about the 
interpretation of agency officials is incorrect. I certainly hope that 
the State Department would not disregard the abundantly clear direction 
provided by the Committee. I ask my colleague if my interpretation of 
the Committee's direction comports with his own, as Chairman of the 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. GREGG. My colleague from Idaho is correct. In setting the funding 
priorities for the Bureau of Arms Control, within the State Department, 
the Committee has clearly directed that the $10,000,000 provided be 
used for the purpose of verification technology. The Committee further 
specifies that verification technology will include systemization of 
promising non-intrusive nuclear topographic techniques including the 
Fission Assay tomography System and the Gamma Neutron Assay Technique, 
which together will provide the ability to detect and characterize 
special nuclear materials while at the same time ensuring that design 
information is not revealed. The President's budget request is just 
that--a request for the Committee's consideration--but Congress, within 
its prerogatives, sets agency funding levels, and sets priorities 
within those levels.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman. I am 
assured that his understanding of the Committee's intent for these 
funds is the same as mine.


                 funding for the sba office of advocacy

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senator Gregg and 
Senator Hollings, for their initiative to allocate $2.5 million in the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill to fund the 
research function of the Office of Advocacy at the Small Business 
Administration. This is an increase of $1.1 million over the amount in 
the President's FY 2000 budget request for SBA.
  The Office of Advocacy, which is headed by the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy, performs an essential role acting as the eyes, ears, and 
voice from within the Federal bureaucracy on behalf of the small 
business community. One key responsibility carried out by the Office of 
Advocacy is the research it conducts on issues critical to small 
businesses. It is our understanding that $500,000 of the additional 
funds for the Advocacy research function are targeted toward the review 
of interpretative regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service of 
the Department of the Treasury and rules issued by the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration of the Department of Labor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleague and friend from 
Missouri, Senator Bond, in supporting the additional funding for the 
Office of Advocacy. This is a substantial increase over FY 1999 
funding, which I believe is important for the ability of the Office of 
Advocacy to carry out its important mission on behalf of small 
business. Among others, those responsibilities include conducting 
research on a number of issues that are critical to small minority-
owned and women-owned firms, and the cost of Federal regulations. I 
commend my colleagues, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, for their 
initiative in providing this increase.
  We are also very concerned about the current staffing needs of the 
Office of Advocacy, which has declined significantly in recent years. 
In FY 1990, there were 70 full-time employees assigned to the Office of 
Advocacy. During the current fiscal year, it is my understanding the 
SBA Administrator has allocated 49 full-time staff for the Office of 
Advocacy.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator Kerry about the 
failure of SBA to allocate adequate staff to the Office of Advocacy. 
This shortfall has placed an enormous burden on the ability of the 
Office to fulfill its mission. While I would encourage the SBA 
Administrator to allocate staff for the Office of Advocacy at the 1990 
level, I realize they may not be able to make such an large increase in 
one year. Therefore, I would like my colleagues on the Commerce-
Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg and Senator 
Hollings, to clarify their intent for the increase in the FY 2000 
budget for the Office of Advocacy.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the time and effort spent by Senator Bond and 
Senator Kerry working with the Subcommittee in developing the FY 2000 
budget for SBA. The Subcommittee approved the increase in the budget 
for the Office of Advocacy to enable it to assess the economic 
contributions made by small businesses, to determine the impact of 
federal regulations and tax policies on small businesses, to dedicate 
sufficient resources to help carry out its responsibilities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and to undertake reviews of interpretative 
regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of 
the Treasury and rules issued by the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration of the Department of Labor.
  It was further our intention to direct SBA to add 5 full-time 
equivalent employees to the Office of Advocacy for a total of 54 full-
time employees for FY 2000. It is our belief this number of full-time 
staff is reasonable to address the burgeoning responsibilities of this 
important office.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur with my good friend and colleague from the New 
Hampshire on the use of the increased funds for the Office of Advocacy. 
In addition, it was our intent to add 5 full-time equivalent employees 
in the Office of Advocacy bringing the total for FY 2000 to 54 full-
time employees.
  Mr. GREGG. I want to make one further clarification regarding the 
$2.5 million earmarked for research by the Office of Advocacy. It was 
our intention that this amount be spent on research contracts and other 
initiatives by the Office of Advocacy. The Subcommittee did not intend 
that any of these funds would be transferred to the general operating 
account for the Agency nor would any of these funds be used to pay the 
costs of maintaining the full-tme staff of the Office of Advocacy.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur with the statement by Senator Gregg.


                          the bunker hill site

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a discussion with 
the Senator from New Hampshire, the distinguished Chairman of the 
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee 
concerning a situation that exists in my home state of Idaho.
  Mr. GREGG. I would be pleased to engage in such a discussion with my 
friend the senior Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. this past weekend Senator Crapo, Congresswoman Chenoweth 
and I conducted a public meeting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho where federal, 
state, local, tribal officials and citizens give statements and 
responded to questions concerning the federal, tribal and state 
governments' involvement in a Superfund site in North Idaho known as 
the Bunker Hill site.
  To date there has been approximately $200 million spent on cleanup. 
Significant progress has been made, but there is a great deal of debate 
going on between the parties concerning what other areas in the Basin 
need to be included in the cleanup. I believe the State of Idaho, the 
Coeur d'Alene Tribe and the federal agencies

[[Page 17456]]

can work out these questions and resolve the conflicts that have gone 
on over this issue in the Coeur d'Alene Basin for over a decade.
  I feel the Department of Justice, Idaho and the Nation as a whole 
would be well served if the DOJ and the other parties involved in 
litigation were to work among themselves parties to resolve the issues 
rather than to continue to litigate.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator raises excellent points. The resources of the 
National are better served in working to resolve these types of 
problems rather than to continue in a litigation strategy for years and 
years. All parties should work to resolve the problems in the Coeur 
d'Alene Basin and the Committee will work with the Senator from Idaho 
to see if further direction is appropriate in the Conference Report.


               development of a habitat conservation plan

  Mr. BURNS. The Senate is accepting my amendment to allocate $250,000 
for the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan as part of the Idaho 
and Montana Coldwater Fishery Enhancement Program. This funding is 
imperative in the preparation of a voluntary Habitat Conservation Plan 
aimed at saving our native fish populations in the two states. As you 
know, we are at the upper end of the Columbia River drainage and the 
impacts seen on salmon in that drainage are interrelated to our native 
trout as well.
  As the debate raged on about what exactly was impacting the native 
fish populations in the lower Columbia system, those of us in the upper 
reaches of the system were doing our best to ensure that enough water 
was sent downstream at the appropriate time to help the native fish as 
much as possible. What we have learned from this practice is that the 
health of our bull trout population is linked to that of the salmon. 
Fewer salmon returning from the ocean to spawn placed concern on the 
health of the entire river system, and the traditional actions taken to 
help one species sometimes had negative impacts on others. As is 
commonly the case with these types of issues, we didn't always realize 
the interrelation until some negative impacts had already taken place.
  Making these funds available for the Idaho and Montana Coldwater 
Fishery Enhancement Program will help us address more of the survival 
needs of native fish species in the Columbia Basin. Stabilizing the 
bull trout population and developing this plan will allow us more 
flexibility in helping the salmon populations recover as well. Senator, 
I hope you will join me in clarifying where this money is to be 
directed and to reaffirm the value of developing a state-led voluntary 
Habitat Conservation Plan for bull trout in Idaho and Montana.
  Mr. GREGG. The Idaho and Montana Coldwater Fishery Enhancement 
Program is an important element in the concerted effort to help native 
fish throughout the Pacific Northwest. This year's appropriations bills 
place a priority on stabilizing the native fish populations throughout 
the region, and this program fills a niche previously left unmet by 
other recovery efforts.


                             SCAAP Funding

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of my friend, 
the Senator from New Hampshire, about funding in this measure for the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, popularly known as the SCAAP.
  As the Senator knows, states and localities, especially those such as 
California with high immigrant populations, face extraordinary costs in 
incarcerating illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes in the 
United States and sentenced for their felony offenses.
  The burden on states and localities which incarcerate criminal aliens 
continues to grow. In California, for example, during February 1997, 
there were 17,904 criminal alien inmates with INS holds on them. This 
rose to 19,355 in 1998. At the end of February, 1999, there were 21,792 
alien inmates in the California state correctional system who have INS 
holds.
  Congress appropriated $585 million for SCAAP in fiscal year 1999 to 
help reimburse state and local governments for the costs of 
incarcerating illegal aliens.
  Given the increasing numbers of illegal aliens that California and 
other states must incarcerate, one would reasonably expect that funding 
for this important program would be increased in fiscal year 2000.
  But it is my understanding, Mr. President, that the bill reported by 
the committee actually makes dramatic cuts in federal funding for 
SCAAP, reducing the level of funding by more than 80 percent to only 
$100 million.
  Given the urgency of the need and the fact that all 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, two territories and 244 localities received SCAAP 
funding in the most recent reimbursement period, I would like to 
inquire of my friend from New Hampshire if there is something that can 
be done to increase funding in this bill for SCAAP to a more 
appropriate level.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the excellent 
comments of my good friend, the Senator from California, and also look 
forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee to resolve the funding disparity in the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).
  Before I begin my comments about this important program and the level 
of funding in the Senate Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill, I 
want to state my full support for what I have been told will be a $585 
million funding level for SCAAP in the House FY 2000 bill. I would also 
like to insert for the record a copy of a letter from the U.S./Mexico 
Border Counties Coalition (which consists of 18 county governments 
located on the Southwestern border) that describes why an adequate 
funding level for SCAAP is so important to these border ares, many of 
which are facing very difficult fiscal situations.
  Through the Crime Control Act of 1994, the Congress created SCAAP to 
reimburse states and localities for the costs they incur incarcerating 
criminal illegal aliens. Such costs, it has been made clear, are the 
responsibility of the federal government. SCAAP is authorized at $650 
million, although total expenditures of the states exceed $2 billion 
per year. Though the financial burden of criminal illegal aliens 
overwhelms the criminal justice budget of many states and localities, 
SCAAP has never even been allocated its full authorization. In 1996 and 
1997, SCAAP was allocated $500 million and last year, states and 
localities received a total of $585 million.
  Frankly, the Congress would be fully justified in increasing the 
authorization level to $2 billion annually. In 1998, the taxpayers of 
Arizona spent $38 million incarcerating criminal illegal aliens, 
including $26.8 million in state facilities, $406,000 in Cochise 
County, $9 million in Maricopa County, $136,000 in Mohave County, 
$534,000 in Pinal County, $450,000 in Santa Cruz County, and $401,000 
in Yuma County. In turn, the state received a reimbursement of $15.1 
million in SCAAP funds--less than half of what Arizona should have 
gotten, and that was when SCAAP was funded at $585 million overall.
  To reduce the total 1999 SCAAP fund by more than 80 percent for 
fiscal year 2000, to $100 million, is absolutely unacceptable. Should 
funding be reduced to $100 million, all 50 states, D.C., and the 244 
local jurisdictions, which currently receive 39 cents on the dollar, 
would be reimbursed a mere seven cents on the dollar, even though such 
costs are a clear federal responsibility. This situation is especially 
disturbing, considering incarceration is only one component of the 
overwhelming cost incurred by states and localities when processing 
criminal illegal aliens--and one for which the federal government 
promised to provide reimbursement in the Crime Control Act of 1994.
  In Santa Cruz County, Arizona, the overall costs of both processing 
and incarcerating illegal criminal aliens takes up 39 percent of the 
county's criminal justice budget. And that is just one county in my 
state. The combined costs to jurisdictions all over the country are 
staggering, and the SCAAP program only reimburses states for the 
incarceration portion of these onerous costs. Unless Congress 
appropriates sufficient funds for SCAAP, at the very

[[Page 17457]]

least, Arizona and other state and local governments will continue to 
shoulder billions of dollars of the expense of incarcerating and 
processing criminal illegal aliens.
  Mr. President, I very much hope that Senators Gregg, Hollings, 
Feinstein and I can work to resolve these issues before this bill is 
signed into law.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the 
comments expressed by my friends, the Senator from California and the 
Senator from Arizona, and commend them for their efforts on the 
extremely important issue.
  The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program provides much needed 
financial assistance to New York State and many of our great state's 
cities and counties, as they try to grapple with the significant costs 
of incarcerating criminal aliens. In fiscal year 1998, New York and its 
localities received a total of $96.4 million in SCAAP funding-- with 
New York City securing the largest single grant for a locality in the 
nation.
  I am very disappointed and disturbed that the bill reported by the 
committee would reduce SCAAP funding to $100 million for fiscal year 
2000, This could translate to a $80 million cut in assistance for New 
York: a $46 million cut for the state itself, $27.7 million for New 
York City, 4 million for Nassau County, $1 million for Suffolk County, 
$800,000 for Westchester County, $32,000 for Montgomery County, $25,500 
for Albany County, $19,500 for Putnam County, and smaller amounts for 
Cortland County.
  Cuts of this magnitude would leave New York to assume a difficult and 
heavy burden for what is very much a federal responsibility. I join my 
friends from California and Arizona in asking our friend from New 
Hampshire whether something could be done to restore SCAAP funding to a 
more acceptable level.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank my friends from California, 
Arizona, and New York for their excellent observations. I know that 
they have been tireless in their efforts to secure both an end to 
illegal immigration and to ensure that the federal government assume a 
share of the financial responsibility for its inability to control 
illegal immigration.
  I know, as well, that the senator from California and the senator 
from Arizona were two of the principal authors of the SCAAP program 
when it was created by the 1994 Crime bill, and that they both worked 
very hard to help secure the $585 million which was appropriated last 
year and in fiscal year 1998 for this important program.
  Knowing of the great need for adequate funding for SCAAP, it pains me 
that the Committee was unable to fund it at the level it deserves. I 
assure the senators that I will make it a high priority during the 
conference between the House and Senate to secure adequate funding for 
this program, that does so much for all of our states that are burdened 
by the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur with my colleague from New Hampshire. I 
understand the importance of this funding for states impacted by high 
rates of criminal alien incarceration and I am hopeful we can provide 
an adequate funding level for SCAAP during conference.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their 
encouraging words. As I am sure they know, the SCAAP reimbursements 
provided in prior years did not nearly cover the costs states and 
localities incurred to incarcerate illegal aliens in their 
jurisdictions.
  In fiscal year 1998, the last year for which such cost figures are 
available, the cost for states and localities amounted to $1.7 billion. 
Thus, last year's funding level covered only 30 percent of actual 
costs.
  A cut along the magnitude of that which is included in the Committee 
bill would be absolutely devastating. I understand the House CJS 
Subcommittee is recommending an FY00 SCAAP funding level of $585 
million. I will work closely with the Chairman and Ranking Member and 
others in both bodies during the weeks to come to assure that the 
conference on this bill adequately funds this program.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of 
my colleagues with regard to the issue of funding for the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). SCAAP is a vital 
reimbursement program for states like mine that assists in the 
significant cost of incarcerating criminal aliens.
  Although securing the border is the responsibility of the federal 
government, states and localities have had to bear the costs associated 
with incarcerating aliens should they enter the criminal justice 
system. In previous years, Congress has recognized their burden and 
worked to secure as much as $585 million for this critical program. 
Even at that level, less than 40% of Texas' costs of criminal alien 
incarceration have been reimbursed. Cutting SCAAP by over 80% as 
proposed in this measure would result in a reimbursement of only about 
7% of the total cost to the State of Texas. It is estimated that the 
State of Texas would receive less than $7 million, and Texas counties 
would share in less than $3 million. Dallas County would receive less 
than $200,000 despite enduring costs of over $2.5 million; the County 
of El Paso, with costs exceeding $2.6 million, would be reimbursed only 
about $200,000; and Harris County, with costs nearing $14 million, 
would receive less than $1 million. Mr. President, this is the same 
Harris County that last week took custody in its county jail of the 
accused railway murderer, Angel Maturino-Resendez. In this case, Harris 
County is forced to assume the costs of detaining Maturino-Resendez, 
who is alleged to have repeatedly entered this country illegally and 
further alleged to have committed a string of stunningly violent 
murders across the United States. There could not be a more graphic 
illustration of why we need to support the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program, so that our cities, counties and States are not 
left alone to pay the costs of the Federal government's failure to 
protect the border.
  I pledge to work with the chairman to see that adequate funding can 
be restored to this vital program and appreciate the Senator from 
California bringing this important matter to the floor.


            the harbor gardens economic development project

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express my 
support for the Harbor Gardens economic development project. I have 
requested funding in the Economic Development Administration (EDA) 
account for this worthwhile initiative in the Manchester neighborhood 
of Pittsburgh.
  The mission of Harbor Gardens is to continue to help in rebuilding 
the economic, physical, social, human, and cultural infrastructure of 
one of Pittsburgh's most distressed communities. The project consists 
of a state-of-the-art urban greenhouse for the benefit of students and 
city residents. Horticulture is the fastest growing segment of agri-
business, and therefore, the skills which program participants gain can 
translate into well-paying jobs. The project will ensure the education 
of its graduates in the horticultural industry, including advance 
greenhouse production technology and landscaping techniques. The 
Business and Industrial Development Corporation is partnering with the 
Pennsylvania State University, the School District of Pittsburgh, 
Pittsburgh Civic Garden Center, Phipps Conservatory and Botanical 
Center, Zuma Canyon Orchids, and Pittsburgh Cut Flowers. Rare plants 
will be grown to be purchased for resale, and tours, seminars, plant 
auctions, and festivals will all contribute to maximizing revenues.
  Federal funding crucial to the completion of this innovative approach 
to economic development, and an EDA grant will play an important role 
in meeting that federal commitment.
  I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Subcommittee, 
Senator Gregg, to ensure that this project receives funding.
  Mr. GREGG. I welcome the comments by the Senator from Pennsylvania 
and look forward to continuing to work with him on this request. I am

[[Page 17458]]

well aware of the importance he places on the Harbor Gardens project. I 
would strongly urge the EDA to consider a proposal by the Business and 
Industrial Development Corporation within applicable procedures and 
guidelines and provide a grant if warranted.


                            the byrne grant

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished Chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, regarding 
the importance of the Byrne Grant.
  Mr. GREGG. I understand the Senator's interest in this area.
  Mr. KYL. I thank Senator Gregg for entering this colloquy with me 
about a program which is particularly vital to the law enforcement 
personnel in my own state of Arizona. As you know, the Byrne Grant is a 
key source of federal financial assistance for state and local drug law 
enforcement efforts. It funds a wide variety of activities ranging from 
task forces and drug education to apprehension and prosecution. In 
Arizona, numerous counties and agencies rely on Byrne Grant funds to 
pay the salaries of nearly 300 law enforcement and prosecution 
personnel; rural counties especially benefit from Bryne Grant funds for 
their law enforcement activities.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the Byrne grant program and its importance, 
as well as the fact that the Administration's budget cut Byrne by over 
$90 million, not to mention the Administration's ``zero-funding'' of 
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant--which this Subcommittee funded 
at $400 million. As Chairman of the subcommittee that provides funds 
for law enforcement, I am intimately familiar with the need to fund 
effective and successful law enforcement programs. I join with the 
Senator from Arizona in recognizing the importance of the Byrne Grant. 
As this bill moves to conference, I look forward to working with you to 
address your concerns.
  Mr. KYL. Once again, I thank the distinguished Chairman.


                   warden offender nomitoring system

  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Gregg and his staff for their tireless 
efforts on this legislation. I believe this legislation contains some 
important steps in a number of areas, including law enforcement. At 
this time, I would like to engage the Chairman in a discussion with 
regard to a new technology developed by Capstone Technologies, a 
company located in my state of Alabama. I think it is essential that we 
explore new areas of technology that can increase the effectiveness of 
law enforcement.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his interest in this 
legislation and in improving our law enforcement efforts. I agree that 
we should explore new techniques that can improve the capabilities of 
the law enforcement community.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Capstone Technologies developed the Warden Offender 
Monitoring System to aid in monitoring offenders that have been put 
under residential detention. The Warden is a biometric, three 
dimensional monitoring system using voice verification, personal 
history inquiry and voice recording. The Warden uses computer voice 
verification to identify offenders placed on residential detention. The 
Warden monitors the offender using a touch-tone phone, with no new 
equipment to install or maintain. Random calls are made by the computer 
to the home of the offender during the hours sanctioned by the court. 
The system uses the ``voiceprint'', which is recorded initially, to 
identify the offender on the phone. All calls are monitored and all 
violations identified by the computer are followed by a personal call 
from the staff to ensure that there are no false violations recorded. 
The Warden can also detect when an offender is under the influence of 
alcohol or other drugs. If the computer detects certain characteristics 
of intoxication it will report a violation immediately to the 
supervisor with a recommendation to conduct a sobriety test. I believe 
this technology could be an extremely useful tool for law enforcement. 
One specific area in which the Warden system might be very helpful 
would be in monitoring juveniles. By implementing a versatile 
residential detention system, we can avoid having to place our youth in 
jail, and possibly help parents and the individual gain control of his 
life before it's too late.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree that this technology could have useful 
applications to our law enforcement system. I look forward to working 
with the Senator from Alabama in the future as we explore technological 
developments and other useful tools that can aid our law enforcement 
community.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chairman again for his leadership and for 
his interest in this important issue. I look forward to working with 
him on this new technology in the months to come.


 the economic development administration of the department of commerce

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
Appropriations Subcommittee, for joining me to discuss the urgent need 
to provide funding for defense conversion in the greater St. Louis 
area. Over 7,000 Missourians are in danger of losing their jobs if the 
F-15 production line shuts down at the Boeing plant in St. Louis. These 
are high-paying, high-skilled jobs, and I am committed to doing 
everything I can to help these hard-working Missourians find other 
sources of employment in the greater St. Louis area.
  These workers have helped keep America strong through their work on 
the F-15 and other military systems that are so integral to our 
national security. Their skill and knowledge are a national asset--a 
national asset which I think should be preserved through keeping the F-
15 line open. I have worked toward that end, and Senator Bond and I 
successfully secured funding for additional F-15 purchases in the 
Defense Appropriations bill last month. But hundreds of F-15 workers 
will lose their jobs even with additional purchases of the plane, and 
those workers should be assisted in the transition process.
  The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is well aware of the 
Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the good work EDA does to 
facilitate economic adjustment in so many parts of the country.
  Mr. GREGG. I am well aware of the EDA and the economic adjustment 
programs it funds, including substantial work in areas of the country 
impacted by defense downsizing.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's reference to the defense 
conversion work performed by the EDA. In fact, EDA has assisted St. 
Louis before, as the regional economy has adjusted from defense layoffs 
over the past decade. St. Louis has one of the most effective and 
highly respected economic adjustment offices in the country, as the 
Defense and Commerce Departments would attest. The city has a 
demonstrated track record of using federal dollars effectively and is 
well-prepared to use EDA funding to meet the current, pressing needs of 
these F-15 workers. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire if he will work with me in the coming months to address 
the defense conversion needs in the St. Louis area.
  Mr. GREGG. I am aware of the good work St. Louis has done in the past 
when defense downsizing has affected the city's economy. As Chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee overseeing funding for the Commerce 
Department and the EDA, I will work with the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri to assist the city.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for his kind remarks and his 
willingness to work with me to address this important matter in 
Missouri.


      rapid response system for young children exposed to violence

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the 
Senate Maine's Community Alliance to End Violence Against Children. The 
Alliance, which includes the Maine State Police, Catholic Charities 
Maine, and the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, will improve and 
expand the coordination of services for preventing and reducing the 
negative impact that exposure to violence has on young children. As my 
distinguished colleague

[[Page 17459]]

from New Hampshire is aware, rural regions have unique problems 
coordinating and delivering services to children exposed to violence.
  Mr. GREGG. I am pleased the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice, State, and the Judiciary directed the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention to examine the proposal for a Rapid 
Response Program for children living in Hancock and Washington Counties 
and to provide a grant for the program if warranted.
  Ms. COLLINS. Downeast Maine is particularly in need of help. 
Washington County, for example, is a large rural area in which chronic 
poverty, unemployment, substance abuse and domestic violence result in 
far too many children being exposed to violence. Currently there is no 
program in these counties that offers adequate intervention and 
treatment to address the harmful aftereffects of exposure to violence. 
The Alliance will develop a system through which existing resources can 
be coordinated to provide appropriate and timely responses to the 
emotionally and physically damaging situations children often face. 
There is strong evidence that a rapid response team, intervening on 
behalf of children in crisis situations, can mitigate the long term 
consequences of trauma.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Maine for her efforts to address 
this problem. Data from urban areas have shown that a rapid response to 
trauma in children does reduce the development of anti-social behavior 
in the long term. However, there are no data from rural communities. 
The demonstration project that the Alliance proposes can be a model for 
service delivery in other rural areas and appears to be an excellent 
candidate for Department of Justice funds.
  Ms. COLLINS. I am sure that many rural communities will benefit from 
the work of the Maine Alliance. Its plan has been inspired by the work 
of Dr. Carl Bell, President of the Community Mental Health Council in 
Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Bell's analysis of the effects of trauma and the 
needs of African-American youth in Chicago can be applied to the 
predominantly white and Native-American youth in eastern, rural Maine 
and ultimately youth in any rural area.
  Mr. GREGG. I want to assure the Senator from Maine that I understand 
the importance of the work of the Maine Community Alliance to End 
Violence Against Children and its potential significance as a model for 
rural areas across the nation.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee for their 
support and look forward to working with you to implement this project.


        consolidation of all first responder training at the CDP

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire in a brief colloquy to discuss the merits of 
consolidating training for our Nation's First Responders.
  Would the Senator agree consolidation of all Department of Justice 
first responder training under the Center for domestic Preparedness at 
Fort McClellan, Alabama would significantly improve the quality and 
level of first responder domestic preparedness training?
  Mr. GREGG. Is Consolidation of training in one organization really 
necessary?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. Stakeholders have repeatedly stated the need for a 
single authoritarian point of contact for training information. Also 
the June 2, 1999 Report to Congress specifically recognized the 
requirement: ``A centrally coordinated and standardized national 
training program is needed to ensure an effective, integrated response 
and to minimize redundancy in training programs.''
  Mr. GREGG. What would be the advantage of this consolidation?
  Mr. SESSIONS. OSLDPS approach to responder training is somewhat 
fragmented. The CDP currently oversees most DoJ training. However, in 
October, 2000, DoD will transfer responsibility for its Nunn-Lugar City 
Training program to DoJ. Current plans are to manage this new program 
out of OSLDPS in Washington, DC office. Consolidation of all DoJ 
training at the CDP would centralize all training in one organization 
providing a more effective, efficient use of resources.
  Mr. GREGG. How much City Training will remain once the programs 
transfers to DoJ?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Of the original 120 cities scheduled to receive 
training, only 25 will be completely finished by October 2000. 
Approximately 65 cities will be in some phase of training. This is a 
very large and complex training program requiring extensive 
coordination and attention to detail.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the CDP have the expertise to execute such a large 
training program?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. The CDP Director and his key staff have extensive 
experience in planning, coordinating and executing large training 
programs with DoJ, DoD and other agencies. The staff also has expertise 
in the first responder disciplines, such as fire, law enforcement and 
emergency medical. The CDP is also closer and perhaps, more attuned to 
first responder issues.
  Mr. GREGG. What is the relative experience of the OSLDPS key staff?
  Mr. SESSIONS. While they have some experience in coordinating 
programs within the interagency arena, their primary experience has 
been in the area of grant formulation and execution. no one on the 
OSLDPS staff currently has any experience in executing a training 
program this large.
  Mr. GREGG. Are there other advantages to consolidating DoJ first 
responder training at CDP?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. Placing one organization in charge of all DoJ 
training has several advantages:
  It centralizes all training and course development, curriculum 
standardization, assessment and instructor certification in one 
organization;
  It provides more effective oversight of training and related 
programs;
  Eliminates course overlap and course redundancy;
  It facilitates coordination of training issues in the interagency 
community; and
  It provides a single point of contact ``one stop shopping'' for state 
and local responders for all training issues.
  Mr. GREGG. Will this consolidation save money and manpower?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Dual-hatting the Director of the CDP as the OSLDPS 
Director of Training will eliminate the need for a large training 
coordination and oversight function/staff in Washington, DC.
  Mr. GREGG. Why is this so important?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Consolidation of all training at the CDP is important 
because it will provide a single authoritative source for training and 
related technical assistance and information. To this end, I am 
convinced that the National Guard should establish its central distance 
learning facility at Fort McClellan to leverage these training 
requirements for the 11 million First Responders in America.
  Mr. GREGG. I would like to say to my good friend from Alabama that I 
agree with his views on training consolidation at the Center for 
Domestic Preparedness, and I appreciate his time and attention to this 
important issue. I look forward to working with him to fully explore 
this issue with Justice Department officials in the coming months. I 
would hope they will move aggressively to implement a National Training 
Strategy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for participating 
in this colloquy and for his support on this issue. I, too, look 
forward to working with my friend from New Hampshire and other 
colleagues on this important issue.


         the repeal of section 110 of the 1996 immigration law

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the important 
issue of a visa entry-exit control system with the Senator from 
Michigan, Mr. Abraham, the Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, 
and Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Senator Abraham, you and I and other Members who represent the

[[Page 17460]]

Northern regions of our country have been working for over 3 years now 
to repeal Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208). Section 110 of this 1996 
Immigration law would require a recording and identification system to 
be implemented to document the arrival and departure of all non-U.S. 
citizens at all ports of entry in the U.S., including those entry 
points along the U.S. border with Canada.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. The Senator is correct. Those of us who represent states 
bordering Canada know well the immense volume of tourism and trade that 
passes through our states from our neighbor to the North. The 
implementation of Section 110 would cause gross delays to all those 
crossing the Northern border from Canada, and ultimately have a 
disastrous impact on the Northern economy as critical trade and travel 
routes are slowed. It would also harm states along the Southern border 
as well.
  Ms. COLLINS. In my State of Maine, this new border policy would have 
the most immediate impact on border communities such as Calais, 
Houlton, Madawaska, and Jackman. Businesses in these communities rely 
on Canadian consumers to stay in business. Moreover, the impact on 
trade, including lumber and tourism, would extend beyond these 
communities and reverberate across Maine and through the Northern 
economy as a whole.
  Those of us who represent states along the Canadian border know 
intimately how deep the shared ties between the U.S. and Canada truly 
are. Our relationship has included disagreements over the years, but 
our Canadian neighbors are part of our family--a fact that is literally 
and figuratively true for many Mainers whose extended families live 
across the border in Canada.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Our border policy with Canada has served us well, and is 
a symbol of the close relationship between our two countries. The 
border with Canada is the longest continuous open border in the world, 
and our close friendship should not be clouded by a needless 
bureaucratic exercise. Moreover, numerous jobs, jobs held by Americans 
in Michigan and elsewhere, would be lost if Section 110 is implemented. 
The effect on tourism and on just-in-time deliveries would inhibit the 
flow of goods and people in a way that would hurt the economics of many 
states.
  Ms. COLLINS. Largely because of your efforts, Senator Abraham, 
Section 110 has yet to be substantively implemented at land borders and 
sea ports of entry. Last year, the FY99 Omnibus Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (105-277) delayed the implementation of Section 110 
on land and sea ports of entry until March 31, 2001, and included 
language stating that the entry/exit control system must ``not 
significantly disrupt trade, tourism, or other legitimate cross-border 
traffic at land border points of entry''. And in today's Commerce-
Justice-State Appropriations bill, Section 110 is repealed outright. I 
salute your efforts on behalf of this very important measure which will 
benefit both of our states and the northern economy as a whole.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Maine for her remarks, and for 
the important work she has done to repeal this measure. As the 
overwhelming vote nearly one year ago illustrates, there is near 
unanimity in the Senate on this issue, and I salute the Senator from 
New Hampshire for his outstanding ongoing support, and his willingness 
to insert provisions addressing this problem into the underlying 
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill.
  Mr. GREGG. I am pleased to support the measure to repeal Section 110 
of the 1996 Immigration bill. I too believe strongly that the border 
policy we currently enjoy with the country of Canada should not be 
disturbed. I will continue to work in Conference to see that this 
matter is finally put to rest.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Senator Gregg, your efforts are deeply 
appreciated by the American people.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you to both Senators for their leadership on this 
issue, and for joining me in this colloquy.


                    Drug Enforcement Administration

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as the Senate reaches the conclusion of 
the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill, I would like to speak a 
moment about an important US law enforcement agency funded in this 
bill--an agency dedicated to keeping drugs off our streets. I am 
specifically talking about the Drug Enforcement Administration.
  Mr. President, in 1998, the DEA seized more drugs and arrested more 
traffickers than ever before. With limited funding, and unlimited hard 
work and dedication, DEA human resources are a vital source not just 
for our law enforcement activities, but for other nations as well. The 
DEA does its job without a heavy reliance on big ticket items like 
ships and aircraft. On the contrary, this agency relies primarily on 
manpower. Their manpower and skill are what makes them such an 
effective organization both inside and outside our borders.
  Fortunately after 2 years of almost stagnant funding levels, the 
Republican Congress has been working to increase its investment in the 
DEA. Last year Congress provided the DEA with $1.4 billion in Fiscal 
Year 1999, an increase of roughly $60 million. This increase was 
possible largely through legislation Senator Coverdell and I introduced 
and Congress passed last year--the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination 
Act. However, we need to do more.
  Congress should continue its support of the DEA. Increasing our 
investment in DEA, which will in turn increase the strength and ability 
of our counter-narcotics strategy, is the only way to continue to 
increase the numbers of drug arrests and seizures.
  Let me give you some examples of where more DEA resources have and 
can continue to make a difference. Mr. President, I have visited Haiti 
numerous times and have visited the Dominican Republic as well. It is 
truly unfortunate that roughly twenty per cent of the drugs entering 
the United States travel through these two countries. The Haiti-
Dominican Republic transit route has become increasingly popular for 
drug traffickers because both governments do not present a real threat 
to drug traffickers. What makes matters worse is that our resources 
devoted to preventing drugs from reaching this island have been minimal 
at best.
  When I visited Haiti back in March 1998, I was astonished to find out 
that there was only one DEA agent stationed in Haiti. When I visited 
the Dominican Republic on the same trip, I was disappointed to find out 
there were only two DEA agents stationed there. How can our government 
keep drugs from entering our country if we do not make a commitment to 
seize drugs along a major international route on the drug trafficking 
highway? When I returned from that trip, I worked with the DEA and the 
Attorney General to get additional agents assigned to both countries. I 
received a commitment to station seven DEA agents in Haiti and six 
agents in the Dominican Republic. The process has been slow in getting 
the agents to Haiti--because of language training in particular--but 
the increase in agents has already made a tremendous difference.
  Since that trip back in March 1998, I have returned to Haiti and the 
Dominican Republic, and visited with the DEA agents stationed there. As 
a result of our increased DEA presence on the island, the DEA, in 
conjunction with the US Customs and with the Haiti and Dominican 
governments, has pursued several counter-drug operations. Their 
presence also has helped increase cooperation between the two nations.
  I had the opportunity to visit the Haitian-Dominican border last 
November to observe a DEA-Customs counter-drug initiative called 
Operation Genesis. Until that time, there was virtually no cooperation 
between the two nations at the border. This lack of cooperation is a 
major reason why the island became a popular drug trafficking route. 
The objective of Operation Genesis was to help both countries better 
coordinate and cooperate with each other to prevent drugs from 
transiting the border.

[[Page 17461]]

  The enhanced Haitian-Dominican cooperation through overall DEA 
efforts has proven successful. For example, last February, the Haitian 
National Police in coordination with the DEA, arrested relatives of the 
Coneo family--a well known Colombian drug trafficking family with 
connections in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Heriberto Coneo's 
wife, son and his brother-in-law were arrested in Haiti for carrying 
false Dominican passports. Haiti later expelled them to the Dominican 
Republic, where they were arrested and placed in prison. This was a 
major victory.
  Another example of this enhanced cooperation was the recent arrest of 
a Haitian National Police Division Chief who had fled to the Dominican 
Republic after his involvement in the deaths of more than 11 Haitians. 
The coordinated efforts by the DEA with these two countries resulted in 
the Dominicans arresting the police official and expelling him to 
Haiti.
  The DEA also has helped train the Haitian National Police counter-
drug unit. With DEA assistance, our Embassy in Port-au-Prince reports 
that the Haitian police has seized more than $1 million in money being 
smuggled out of the country in large sums.
  I also have seen the DEA in action in South America, specifically in 
Peru and in Colombia. I walked through poppy fields in Neiva, Colombia 
where I saw first hand the source of the serious heroin problem 
plaguing our country today. We were in a region only 20 miles from the 
Colombian demilitarized zone. The DEA has been instrumental in working 
and training the Colombian National Police to seize drugs and arrest 
drug lords.
  While, I have described a few success stories, I need to remind my 
colleagues that the DEA is producing incredible returns on a very small 
investment.
  Imagine what more the DEA could do if they had more personnel. The 
fact is the DEA simply does not have the resources to meet their 
demanding and necessary tasks. With more resources, border initiatives 
like the one in Haiti and the Dominican Republic could be expanded, 
allowing for a greater reduction in the heavy trafficking that occurs 
between the two countries. With more resources, additional DEA agents 
can be sent overseas to assist law enforcement officials in learning 
ways to stop drug trafficking. That kind of investment--to build anti-
drug operations in other countries--will build even more barriers to 
drugs outside our borders.
  Mr. President, last March, Senator Coverdell and I, along with a 
number of our colleagues--Republican and Democrat--sent a letter to the 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings, 
calling for building on this year's investment in the DEA and 
requesting additional funding for 300 additional DEA agents, analysts 
and support personnel, and for other DEA initiatives. This request 
would enable the DEA to carry out specific initiatives outlined in the 
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, a three year initiative for 
enhanced international drug eradication and interdiction efforts.
  I recognize the serious budget challenges facing this Subcommittee 
and other Appropriations subcommittees as well. Chairman Gregg and 
Senator Hollings were extremely gracious in accommodating our request. 
Specifically, the Subcommittee earmarked $17.5 million for new DEA 
agents, analysts, and support staff for both international and domestic 
posts.
  Mr. President, this is an important first step. It is my hope that as 
this bill moves to a conference with the House, the conferees will work 
to increase our overall investment in the DEA, so that specific 
priority requirements are not funded at the expense of other important 
DEA programs.
  Again, Mr. President, since 1995 Congress has made great progress 
last year to increase our investment to revive our international 
counter narcotics strategy. Last year's passage of the Western 
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act was the latest example of this 
progress. Not only did Congress pass legislation, but we also provided 
an $800 million down payment for the bill.
  Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration is not showing a similar 
commitment. The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2000 provided zero 
funding for provisions outlined in the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act. In fact, it calls for more than $100 million less than 
our total anti-drug funding for 1999. The Coast Guard received zero 
funding for the acquisition of air/maritime assets; the Drug 
Enforcement Agency received zero funding for new agents; our Customs 
Service received zero funding for procurement of maritime/air assets 
and zero increases for U.S. Customs inspectors. This Administration has 
not demonstrated a commitment to fund a real, coherent international 
counter-drug strategy. What good is it to have tough drug laws here at 
home and a tough international counter narcotics policy at and beyond 
the border if you do not have the resources to enforce them?
  Mr. President, I have repeatedly expressed my concerns that the 
Administration has not been doing enough in the fight against drugs. 
When the Clinton Administration took over, the DEA workforce dropped 
from 7,277 in 1992 to 7,066 in 1994. However, since the Republican 
takeover of Congress in 1994, we have fought to boost the workforce 
from 7,066 to more than 9,000. The Administration's latest action, or 
lack of action, only reinforces my belief that more can be done. There 
has been an increasing number of reports of outrageous amounts of drugs 
being distributed throughout our country that originates 
internationally and domestically. Why is that? Only the federal 
government can devote the resources to seize drugs outside our country. 
It is unfortunate that the Clinton Administration continues to fail to 
fully support this exclusive federal responsibility.
  With increased DEA funding, we have the opportunity to eliminate one 
of the most glaring omissions in the President's budget. It is my hope 
that we will continue to search for additional funding to the DEA so 
that they can hire these new agents, analysts, and support personnel 
without having to sacrifice other important programs. These agents 
would work hand-in-hand with international law enforcement authorities 
to provide the intelligence, expertise, and even the manpower required 
to arrest the drug traffickers.
  Mr. President, I have seen the DEA at work throughout the region. The 
agency is a group of hard-working dedicated individuals who risk their 
lives to create a healthy environment for democracies to flourish, 
while at the same time get the drugs off the streets of America. They 
do so much good with the limited resources they have. It is now time 
for us to pass this amendment, give the DEA additional resources and 
once again watch the number of arrests and seizures increase causing 
the flow of narcotics into our country to sharply decrease.
  Mr. President, it is time to renew drug interdiction efforts; time to 
provide the necessary personnel and equipment to our drug-enforcement 
agencies, and time to make the issue a national priority once again.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill 
for their hard work in putting forth annual legislation which provides 
federal funding for numerous vital programs. The Senate will soon vote 
to adopt the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill for the 
Fiscal Year 2000. I intend to support this measure because it provides 
funding for fighting crime, enhancing drug enforcement, and responding 
to threats of terrorism. This further addresses the shortcomings of the 
immigration process, funds the operation of the judicial system, 
facilitates commerce throughout the United States, and fulfills the 
needs of the State Department and various other agencies.
  For many years, I have tried to cut wasteful and unnecessary spending 
from the annual appropriations bills--with only limited success, I must 
admit. Nonetheless, I will continue my fight to curb wasteful pork-
barrel spending, and I regret that I must

[[Page 17462]]

again come forward this year to object to the millions of unrequested, 
low-priority, wasteful spending in this bill and its accompanying 
report. This year's bill has over $1 billion in pork-barrel spending. 
This is a disgracefully huge increase over last year's FY 99 Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Bill, which contained $361 million in 
pork-barrel spending. $1.2 billion is an unacceptable amount of money 
to spend on low-priority, unrequested, wasteful projects. In short, 
Congress must curb its appetite for such unbridled spending.
  CBO projects that we will have close to a trillion dollar budget 
surplus over the next 10 years. However, if we continue with our 
current levels of wasteful spending, these budget surpluses may not 
occur. Pork-barrel spending today not only robs well-deserving programs 
of much needed funds, it also jeopardizes social security reform, 
potential tax cuts, and our fiscal well-being into the next century.
  The multitude of unrequested earmarks buried in this proposal will 
undoubtedly further burden the American taxpayers. While the amounts 
associated with each individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken 
together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned 
dollars to low priority programs at the expense of numerous programs 
that have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. 
Congress and the American public must be made aware of the magnitude of 
wasteful spending endorsed by this body.
  I have compiled a lengthy list of the numerous add-ons, earmarks, and 
special exemptions provided to individual projects in this bill. It 
would take a substantial amount of time to recite this list to you. 
Instead, I will ask unanimous consent to include this list in the 
Record.
  Mr. President, because of our nation's robust economy, we now have a 
balanced budget. But we cannot continue to bear the financial burden of 
servicing a $5.6 trillion national debt. We need to continue to work to 
cut unnecessary and wasteful spending so we can begin to pay down our 
debt and save billions in interest payments.
  As I mentioned earlier, CBO recently projected that we will have 
close to a trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years. These 
are projections and not real dollars until they materialize. Further, 
these surplus projections are all contingent on Congress maintaining 
the spending caps. Unfortunately, I already hear the grumbling to break 
these caps even as we have only deliberated on a small number of 
appropriations bills.
  Simply because we can fund programs of questionable merit within the 
spending caps does not mean that we should. There is no room for pork-
barreling when we are so close to breaking the caps. Last year alone, I 
uncovered over $14 billion of wasteful spending in the appropriations 
bills. $14 billion funds a lot of worthy programs.
  As a matter of simple fairness, we have an obligation to ensure that 
Congress spends taxpayers' hard-earned dollars prudently to protect our 
balanced budget and to protect the projected budget surpluses. The 
American public cannot understand why we continue to earmark these huge 
amounts of money to locality specific special interests at a time when 
we are trying to cut the cost of government and return more dollars to 
the people. Pork barrel spending cannot be justified in an environment 
where our highest fiscal priorities should be to save Social Security, 
and provide much needed tax relief such as: increasing the number of 
tax payers in the 15% tax bracket, elimination of the marriage penalty; 
reduced taxation of savings and investment income; repeal of the estate 
and gift tax; repeal of the Social Security Earnings Test; increasing 
the contribution level for 410(k), and 457 retirement plans; and 
increasing the contribution level for the traditional IRA to $5,000.
  Let me say very frankly that I do not generally like the idea of 
griping year after year regarding Congress' appetite for wasteful pork-
barrel spending. But it is a sad commentary on the state of politics 
today that the Congress cannot curb its appetite to earmark funds for 
programs that are obviously wasteful, unnecessary, or unfair. 
Unfortunately, however, Members of Congress have demonstrated time and 
again their willingness to fund programs that serve their narrowly 
tailored interest at the expense of the national interest.
  I ask unanimous consent the list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   OBJECTIONABLE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN S. 1217 THE DEPARTMENTS OF 
   COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                          APPROPRIATIONS BILL

                             Bill Language


                         Department of Justice

       $2,500,000 for the operation of the National Advocacy 
     Center at the University of south Carolina
       $5,000,000 for a task force in each of the paired locations 
     of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden, New Jersey; Las 
     Cruces, New Mexico, and Albuquerque, New Mexico; Savannah, 
     Georgia, and Charleston, South Carolina; Baltimore, Maryland, 
     and Prince Georges County, Maryland; and Denver, Colorado, 
     and Salt Lake City, Utah
       An earmark for funding for the care and housing of Federal 
     detainees held in the joint Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service and United States Marshals Service's Buffalo 
     Detention Facility
       Funding for planning, acquisition of sites and construction 
     of new facilities; and for leasing the Oklahoma City Airport 
     Trust Facility
       $50,000,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing 
     facilities and other areas in cooperation with State and 
     local law enforcement
       $3,000,000 for the National Institute of Justice to develop 
     school safety technologies
       $5,200,000 to the National Institute of Justice for 
     research and evaluation of violence against women


                               Judiciary

       $2,700,000 to the ``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and 
     Other Judicial Services'' for the Institute at Saint Anselm 
     College and the New Hampshire State Library
       A $500,000 earmark for the National Law Center for Inter-
     American Free Trade in Tucson, Arizona
       $13,500,000 for the East-West Center in Hawaii
       $125,000 for the Maui Pacific Center in Hawaii
       $12,500,000 earmarked for the Center of Cultural and 
     Technical Interchange Between East and West in the State of 
     Hawaii
       Language providing that all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made

                            Report Language


                         Department of Justice

       A $30,000,000 earmark for the creation of two 
     counterterrorism laboratories at the site of the Oklahoma 
     City bombing and at Dartmouth College, for research of new 
     technologies and threat reduction for chemical and biological 
     weapons as well as cyber-warfare.
       $2,300,000 to expand the multi-agency task forces in 
     Richmond and Boston, which are designed to keep firearms out 
     of the hands of criminals by enforcing Federal gun laws, by 
     implementing these programs in Philadelphia and Camden.
       $25,000,000 is earmarked for expansion of the existing 
     ``Exile program'' in Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ and to 
     create new task forces in the following four crime corridors: 
     Las Cruces--Albuquerque, NM; Savannah, GA--Charleston, SC; 
     Denver, CO--Salt Lake City, UT; and Baltimore--Prince 
     George's County, MD.
       $2,612,000 for a courtroom technology pilot program 
     involving 10 districts, including Colorado, the northern 
     district of Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, 
     and Vermont.
       $500,000 to establish a Bankruptcy Training Center at the 
     National Advocacy Center at the University of South Carolina
       A $13,750,000 earmark for courthouse security equipment to 
     outfit newly opening courthouses in the following locations: 
     Omaha, NE; Hammond, IN; Covington, KY; Charleston, WV; 
     Montgomery, AL; Tucson, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; Charleston, SC; 
     Albany, NY; Los Angeles, CA; Sioux City, IA; Pocatello, ID; 
     Agana, Guam; Islip, NY; St. Louis, MO; Kansas City, MO; Las 
     Vegas, NV; Albuquerque, NM; Riverside, CA; Corpus Christi, 
     TX.
       $500,000 for the acquisition and installation of 
     videoconferencing equipment in the following locations: 
     Leavenworth, KS; Dawson County, NE; Las Vegas, NV; Charlotte, 
     NC; and high-volume jail locations to be determined in New 
     Mexico and elsewhere.
       Earmarks for courtoom construction at the following 
     locations: Fairbanks, AK; Prescott, AZ; Atlanta, GA; Moscow, 
     ID; Chicago, IL; Rockford, IL; Louisville, KY; Detroit, MI; 
     Las Cruces, NM; Greensboro, NC; Muskogee, OK; Pittsburgh, PA; 
     Florence, SC; Spartanburg, SC; Columbia, TN; Beaumont, TX; 
     Sherman, TX; Cheyenne, WY. Not only are these amounts 
     earmarked for particular locations, but the total earmark is 
     $800 above low tax budget requests.

[[Page 17463]]

       $25,392,000 for the National Infrastructure Protection 
     Center, of which $1,250,000 is for a national program for 
     infrastructure assurance developed in cooperation with the 
     Thayer School of Engineering.
       Language addressing the need for a focused response to 
     illegal drug trafficking in northern New Mexico and an 
     expectation that the FBI will devote sufficient resources to 
     this problem in cooperation with other federal law 
     enforcement agencies.
       Language addressing the need for a focused response to 
     illegal drug trafficking in northern New Mexico and an 
     expectation that the DEA will devote sufficient resources to 
     this problem in cooperation with other Federal law 
     enforcement agencies.
       A $222,000 earmark for the Iowa Division of Narcotics 
     Enforcement to support the overtime, travel, and related 
     expenses of 11 additional narcotics enforcement personnel.
       $178,000 for an Iowa methamphetamine education mobile 
     learning center.
       Funding provided, within the amount made available for 
     legal proceedings, to increase by not less than two the 
     number of attorneys assigned to the district office in 
     Alaska.
       $250,000 for office space for the special agent on Kodiak 
     Island.
       $3,000,000 for the Law Enforcement Support Center. Report 
     language assumes Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina 
     will be added to the system.
       $1,500,000 for equipment, modifications, and manning for a 
     Secure Electronic Network for Traveler's Rapid Inspection 
     lane at San Luis, AZ, port of entry.
       Report language directing the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service to give full consideration to the 
     Etowah County Detention Center in Alabama should it seek to 
     expand available bed space in the region, as long as the 
     county facility remains cost competitive.
       An earmark of $49,968,000 for new Border Patrol 
     construction as follows: $1,000,000 in Alcan, AK for POE 
     Housing; $1,000,000 in Skagway, AK for POE Housing; 
     $6,500,000 in Chula Vista, CA for a Border Patrol Station; 
     $5,000,000 in El Centro, CA for Sector HQ; $7,850,000 in 
     Santa Teresa, NM for a Border Patrol Station; $4,000,000 in 
     Alpine, TX for a Border Patrol Station; $1,200,000 in 
     Brownsville, TX for a Border Patrol Station; $4,300,000 in 
     Del Rio, TX for Border Patrol Sector HQ; $5,118,000 in 
     Presidio, TX for Border Patrol Housing; and $14,000,000 in 
     Charleston, SC for a Border Patrol Academy.
       $8,148,000 for Border Patrol planning, site acquisition, 
     and design as follows: $600,000 in Campo, CA for a Border 
     Patrol Station; $307,000 in El Cajon, CA for a Border Patrol 
     Station; $447,000 in Temecula, CA for a Border Patrol 
     Station; $300,000 in Douglas, AZ for a Border Patrol Station; 
     $1,330,000 in Tucson, AZ for a Border Patrol Station; 
     $687,000 in Yuma, AZ for a Border Patrol Station; $173,000 in 
     Del Rio, TX for Checkpoints; $934,000 in Eagle Pass, TX for a 
     Border Patrol Station; $865,000 in El Paso, TX for a Border 
     Patrol Station; $128,000 in Laredo, TX for Checkpoints; 
     $954,000 in McAllen, TX for Sector HQ; $685,000 in McAllen, 
     TX for a Border Patrol Station; $500,000 in Port Isabel, TX 
     for a Border Patrol Station; and $238,000 in Sanderson, TX 
     for a Border Patrol Station.
       $11,000,000 is earmarked for new construction of a Border 
     Patrol Service Processing Center in Port Isabel, TX.
       $9,500,000 for new construction of a Border Patrol Service 
     Processing Center in Krome, FL.
       $2,000,000 for Border Patrol planning, site acquisition, 
     and design of Service Processing Centers in the following 
     locations: $1,000,000 in El Centro, CA; $800,000 in Florence, 
     AZ; and $200,000 in El Paso, TX.
       $2,000,000 for housing at the remote Alcan and Skagway 
     ports of entry in Alaska.
       $367,000 for a fence in Santa Teresa, NM.
       Funding for five new prisons: one minimum security facility 
     in Forrest City, AR; a medium and minimum security facility 
     in Victorville, CA; and detention centers in Houston, TX, 
     Brooklyn, NY, and Philadelphia, PA.
       An earmark of $101,633,000 to begin or complete activation 
     of the following facilities: $7,500,000 in Butner, NC; 
     $5,422,000 in Fort Devens, MA; $1,902,000 in Loretto, PA; 
     $4,585,000 in Forrest City, AR; $25,230,000 in Victorville, 
     CA; $19,384,000 in Houston, TX; $22,258,000 in Brooklyn, NY; 
     $15,352,000 in Philadelphia, PA.
       $221,000,000 to complete construction of the Northern Mid-
     Atlantic penitentiary and the South Carolina facility.
       $94,000,000 earmarked for construction of a Federal 
     Correctional Institution at Yazoo City, Mississippi.
       Recommended bill language which allows for leasing a 
     facility in Oklahoma City, OK.
       $50,948,000 for the National Institute of Justice for 
     fiscal year 2000 to expand the Adam Program.
       The National Institute of Justice is directed to provide 
     $2,100,000 to the School Crime Prevention and Security 
     Technology Center.
       The National Institute of Justice is further directed to 
     provide $1,025,000 to the Criminal Imaging Response Center, 
     at the Institute of Forensic Imaging, Indianapolis, Indiana, 
     to conduct research; $300,000 to the United States Mexico 
     Coalition to determine costs to border counties to process 
     criminal illegal immigrants; $1,500,000 to the University of 
     Connecticut Health Center to establish a prison health 
     research center; and $2,500,000 for the National Center for 
     Rural Law Enforcement in Arkansas to establish a school 
     violence research center.
       Funding for the Office of Justice Programs to expand 
     training activities at the Fort McClellan Center for Domestic 
     Preparedness and to enter into training agreements with the 
     New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Louisiana 
     State University, Texas A&M University, and the Nevada Test 
     site to develop and implement first responder preparedness 
     training curricula.
       $30,000,000 for the creation of two counter-terrorism 
     laboratories for research on chemical and biological weapons 
     as well as cyber-warfare, to be located at the site of the 
     Oklahoma City bombing and at Dartmouth College.
       $3,500,000 for a Consolidated Advanced Technologies for the 
     Law Enforcement Program at the University of New Hampshire 
     and the New Hampshire Department of Safety.
       $2,000,000 for continued support for the expansion of 
     Search Group, Inc. and the National Technical Assistance and 
     Training Program to assist States, such as West Virginia, to 
     accelerate the automation of fingerprint identification 
     processes.
       $1,500,000 for project Return in New Orleans, LA.
       $1,500,000 to the New Hampshire Department of Safety to 
     support Operation Streetsweeper.
       A $973,900 earmark to allow the Utah State Olympic Public 
     Safety Command to continue to develop and support a public 
     safety master plan for the 2002 Winter Olympics.
       $400,000 is earmarked for the Western Missouri Public 
     Safety Training Institute for classroom and training 
     equipment to facilitate the training of public safety 
     officers.
       $1,000,000 for the Nevada National Judicial College.
       $2,000,000 for the Alaska Native Justice Center.
       $800,000 is earmarked for the San Bernardino, CA, Night 
     Light Program to provide five probation officers and five 
     police officers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
       $250,000 to Gallantin County, Montana, for the planning and 
     needs assessment for a new detention facility;
       $3,000,000 for the National Center for Innovation at the 
     University of Mississippi School of Law to sponsor research 
     and produce judicial education seminars and training.
       An earmark of $1,200,000 to the Haymarket Center's 
     Alternatives to Incarceration Program, Chicago, Illinois.
       $330,000 to the city of Oakland, California, for Project 
     Exile.
       $50,000,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, to 
     include a pilot program for Internet education directed 
     toward the states of Alaska, Missouri, Montana, New 
     Hampshire, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Arizona.
       Report language indicating that the Office of Justice 
     Programs should consider the needs of the Wapka Sica 
     Historical Society of South Dakota and award a grant, if 
     warranted.
       $350,000 to establish the Sarpy County Drug Treatment Court 
     in Nebraska.
       $500,000 to the Family Protection Unit in Oceanside, 
     California.
       $290,000 to the Alaska Family Violence Project.
       $1,750,000 is earmarked for the Las Vegas victims of 
     domestic violence program.
       $250,000 for the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii Navigator 
     Project.
       An earmark of $7,500,000 to the Utah Communications Agency 
     Network for enhancements and upgrades of security and 
     communications infrastructure to assist with the law 
     enforcement needs arising from the 2002 Winter Olympics;
       $7,500,000 to the Utah Communications Agency Network (UCAN) 
     for enhancements and upgrades of security and communications 
     infrastructure to assist with the law enforcement needs 
     arising from the 2002 Winter Olympics.
       $2,500,000 to the Missouri State Court Administrator for 
     the Juvenile Justice Information System to enhance 
     communication and collaboration between juvenile courts, law 
     enforcement, schools, and other agencies.
       $550,000 to the City of Santa Monica's automated Mobile 
     Field Reporting System to place new computers in patrol cars.
       $1,200,000 to Yellowstone County, Montana, to place Mobile 
     Data Systems in patrol cars.
       $650,000 to Yellowstone County, Montana, for a driving 
     simulator to assist them with law enforcement driver training 
     needs.
       $1,333,200 to the city of Jackson, Mississippi, for public 
     safety and automated systems.
       $60,000 for Delta State University, Cleveland, Mississippi, 
     for public safety and automated system technologies to 
     improve campus law enforcement security.
       $10,000,000 for the South Dakota Bureau of Information and 
     Telecommunications to enhance their emergency communication 
     system.
       $2,000,000 to the Alameda County, California, Sheriff's 
     Department for a regionwide voice communications system.

[[Page 17464]]

       $2,500,000 for the North Carolina Criminal Justice 
     Information Network to implement J-Net.
       $390,112 to Racine County, Wisconsin, for a countywide 
     integrated Computer Aided Dispatch management system and 
     mobile data computer system.
       $200,000 to the Vermont Department of Public Safety for a 
     mobile command center.
       $350,000 to the Birmingham, Alabama, Police Department for 
     a mobile emergency command unit.
       $1,000,000 to Fairbanks, Alaska, for police radios and 
     telecommunications equipment.
       $90,000 to Fairbanks, Alaska, for thermal imaging helmet 
     mounted rescue goggles.
       $200,000 for Mobile Data Computer System in Logan, Utah.
       $106,980 for public safety and automated system 
     technologies, Ocean Springs, Mississippi.
       $3,000,000 to the Low Country Tri-County Police initiative.
       $350,000 to the Union County, SC, Sheriff's Office for 
     technology upgrades.
       $430,000 to the Greenwood County, SC, Sheriff's Office for 
     technology upgrades.
       $1,500,000 to the St. Johnsbury, Rutland, and Burlington, 
     VT, technology programs.
       $6,000,000 to the Vermont Public Safety Communications 
     Program.
       $400,000 to the Kauai County Police Department in Hawaii, 
     to enhance their emergency communications systems.
       $400,000 to the Maui County Police Department in Hawaii, to 
     enhance their emergency communications systems.
       $110,000 for the Scotts Bluff Emergency Response System.
       $2,000,000 for the Rock County Law Enforcement Consortium.
       $100,000 for Mineral County, Nevada, technology program.
       $28,000 for Nenana, Alaska's, mobile video and 
     communications equipment.
       $500,000 to the New Jersey State police for new firearms.
       $2,000,000 to the Seattle Police Technology Program.
       $2,000,000 to the South Dakota Training Center [LET] for 
     technology upgrades.
       $9,000,000 to the Southwest Border States Anti-Drug 
     Information Systems [SWBSADIS] for technology upgrades.
       $3,000,000 to the New Hampshire State Police VHF trunked 
     digital radio system; and
       An earmark of $1,700,000 for the Circle of Nations, North 
     Dakota, Juvenile Detention Center to serve high risk American 
     Indian youth.
       Report language recommending that the Office of Justice 
     Programs provide a $2,000,000 grant to Marshall University 
     Forensic Science Program; $5,000,000 to the West Virginia 
     University Forensic Identification Program; $500,000 for the 
     Southeast Missouri Crime Laboratory; $660,760 to the 
     Wisconsin Laboratory to upgrade DNA technology and training; 
     $1,250,000 for Alaska's crime identification program; 
     $1,200,000 to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division to 
     update their forensic laboratory.
       $6,000,000 is earmarked for the Midwest (Missouri) 
     Methamphetamine Initiative to train local and state law 
     enforcement officers on the proper recognition, collection, 
     removal, and destruction of methamphetamine.
       $1,200,000 for the Iowa methamphetamine law enforcement 
     initiative.
       $1,000,000 for the Rocky Mountain, Colorado, 
     Methamphetamine Initiative.
       $1,000,000 for the Illinois State Police to combat 
     methamphetamine and to train officers in those types of 
     investigations.
       $1,000,000 for the Western Wisconsin Methamphetamine Law 
     Enforcement Initiative.
       $1,000,000 for the Northern Utah Methamphetamine 
     Initiative.
       $525,000 is earmarked for the Nebraska Clandestine 
     Laboratory Team.
       $1,000,000 to the Las Vegas Special Police Enforcement and 
     Eradication Program to be equally divided between the Las 
     Vegas Police Department and the North Las Vegas Police 
     Department.
       $50,000 for the Grass Valley Methamphetamine Initiative.
       A $1,000,000 earmark for the Arizona methamphetamine 
     initiative.
       Report language directing the Office of Justice Programs to 
     review requests from Washington State and award grants if 
     warranted.
       Report language directing the Weed and Seed Office to 
     provide $600,000 to the Kids With a Promise Program, 
     Bushkill, PA and $300,000 to the Gospel Rescue Ministries.
       A $3,500,000 earmark for the Hamilton Fish National 
     Institute on School and Community Violence.
       $2,000,000 to expand the Milwaukee Safe and Sound Program 
     to other Wisconsin cities such as Green Bay and Eu Claire.
       $1,000,000 through the University of Montana to create a 
     juvenile after-school program based on the study of Northwest 
     Native Americans in relation to the Lewis and Clark 
     expedition.
       $750,000 is earmarked for the Rio Arriba County, New 
     Mexico, After School Program.
       $200,000 for an evaluation of the Vermont SAFE-T and 
     Colchester Community Youth Project.
       $200,000 for the Vermont Association of Court Diversion 
     Programs to help prevent and treat teen alcohol abuse.
       Report language directing the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention to provide $1,000,000 to Utah 
     State University for a pilot mentoring program that focuses 
     on the entire family and $1,000,000 to the Tom Osborne 
     Mentoring Program.
       $1,000,000 to the Sam Houston State University and Mothers 
     Against Drunk Driving to establish a National Institute for 
     Victims Studies.
       $165,000 to the Inglewood California, Graffiti Removal 
     Project to combat and clean up graffiti in the Inglewood 
     schools.
       $500,000 to the San Bernardino County, California, Home Run 
     Program for five probation officers to be placed in schools.
       $540,767 to the Milwaukee Public Schools Summer Stars 
     Program.
       $425,000 is earmarked for the Montana Juvenile Justice 
     System Teleconferencing Equipment.
       $500,000 for the University of Louisville School Safety 
     Project.
       $250,000 for the Alaska Community in School Program.


              department of commerce and related agencies

       $117,500,000 is earmarked for the National Technical 
     Information Service's ``Construction of research facilities'' 
     account, which includes $10,000,000 for a cooperative 
     agreement with the Medical University of South Carolina and 
     $10,000,000 for a cooperative agreement with Dartmouth 
     College.


            national oceanic and atmospheric administration

     National Ocean Service
       Report earmarks the following projects:
       $500,000 to continue the South Carolina geodetic survey.
       $3,000,000 for the joint hydrographic center for the 
     evaluation of innovative equipment and techniques for the 
     acquisition of survey data at the University of New 
     Hampshire.
       $1,566,000 for a data survey of Naragansett Bay, RI to be 
     conducted in conjunction with the Rhode Island Coastal 
     Resources Management Council.
       $1,000,000 for the South Carolina Task Group on Toxic Algae 
     for research and response activities.
       $1,400,000 for the South Florida Ecosystem.
       $100,000 above the request level for the Coastal 
     Vulnerability Reduction Program for the Community 
     Sustainability Center, in Charleston, SC.
       $5,800,000 for the cooperative Institute for Coastal and 
     Estuarine Environmental Technology (located at the Univ. Of 
     New Hampshire--UNH not specified in report). p. 89.
       $1,250,000 for a Pacific Coastal Services Center in Hawaii.
       $2,000,000 for the Joint Institute for Coastal Habitat at 
     Louisiana State University.
       $2,000,000 for the National Coral Reef Institute and to 
     continue Hawaiian coral reef monitoring and assessment by the 
     University of Hawaii.
       $6,825,000 for the Great Lakes Environmental Research 
     Laboratory (FY 99 appropriated level).
       Report directs the Coastal Ocean Program (a NOAA office) to 
     work with and continue its current levels of support for the 
     Baruch Institute's (SC) research and monitoring of small, 
     high-salinity estuaries.
     National Marine Fisheries Service
       The bill report earmarks the following projects:
       $500,000 for the Hawaiian Community Development Program and 
     fishery demonstration projects for native fisheries 
     development.
       $3,000,000 for PACFIN, the Pacific fishery information 
     network, and directs that Hawaii receive an appropriate share 
     of PACFIN resources. (same level as FY 99)
       $3,000,000 for AKFIN, the new Alaskan fishery information 
     network. (A new line item)
       $3,900,000 for RecFIN, the recreational fishery information 
     network program. Report further directs that the Pacific, 
     Atlantic, and Gulf States each receive one-third of these 
     funds with funding for inshore recreational species 
     assessment and tagging efforts in South Carolina.
       $2,400,000 for continued operations of the NOAA vessel the 
     Gordon Gunter, homeported in Mississippi.
       $250,000 for the harvest technology unit of the National 
     Warmwater Aquaculture Research Center at Stoneville.
       For information collection and analyses resource 
     information programs:
       $3,500,000 for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
     off the coast of Alaska;
       $2,500,000 for the Gulf of Mexico Stock enhancement 
     consortium;
       $500,000 for the Hawaii stock enhancement plan;
       $300,000 for Hawaiian sea turtles;
       $200,000 to conduct sampling of lobster population in State 
     waters in New England;
       $400,000 to continue research on shrimp pathogens in the 
     southeastern U.S.;
       $300,000 to continue a study of the status and trends of 
     southeastern sea turtles;
       $300,000 for research on the Charleston bump, an offshore 
     bottom feature which attracts large numbers of fish;
       $1,500,000 for the Chesapeake Bay multi-species management 
     strategy;
       $1,050,000 for Hawaiian monk seals.
       $1,000,000 for the Xiphophorus Genetic Stock Center at 
     Southwest Texas State University for fish genetics and 
     evolution;

[[Page 17465]]

       $1,500,000 for Chesapeake oyster research.
       $6,325,000 for Alaska groundfish monitoring, including 
     $300,000 for the Berin Sea Fisherman's Association, $225,000 
     for the Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition.
       $1,250,000 for the State of Alaska to develop commercial 
     fisheries near shore, including dive fisheries fur urchins, 
     and groundfish fisheries for cod, rockfish, skates, and 
     dogfish.
       $4,000,000 for Stellar sea lion recovery off of Alaska, 
     including $1,100,000, for the State of Alaska, $1,000,000 for 
     the Alaska SeaLife Center, and $800,000 for the North Pacific 
     Marine Mammal Consortium.
       an $800,000 increase over the FY 99 appropriated level of 
     $700,000 for the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association 
     for habitat restoration and monitoring projects.
       $200,000 for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center for the 
     Virginia Institute for Marine Science to begin participation 
     in the Cooperative Marine Education and Research Program.
       $850,000 to continue the Marine Resources Monitoring 
     Assessment and Prediction Program carried out by the South 
     Carolina Division of Marine Resources.
       $2,000,000 for maintenance of the Sandy Hook, NJ NMFS 
     facility lease.
       $300,000 for maintenance of the Santa Cruz Lab.
       $1,500,000 for maintenance of the Kodiak facility.
       Report earmarks funding for the following commissions in 
     Alaska:
       $400,000 for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission
       $250,000 for the Beluga Whale Committee
       $100,000 for Bristol Bay Native Association
       $200,000 for Aleut Marine Mammal Commission
       Report earmarks the following:
       $500,000 for swordfish research at the NMFS Honolulu 
     laboratory.
       $6,000,000 for the implementation of the American Fisheries 
     Act, including $750,000 for the State of Alaska (a $20 
     million tax-payer funded fishing industry buy-out attached to 
     the Omnibus bill last year)
       $8,000,000 for NMFS to spend on the Gulf of Maine 
     groundfish fishery (includes MA-NH-ME), including $2,820,000 
     for the Northeast Consortium to conduct cooperative research 
     and development.
       $800,000 to the State of Alaska to conduct harbor seal 
     research.
       $6,200,000 for California sea lions.
       $250,000 for the State of Alaska for technical support of 
     proposed salmon recovery plans.
       $425,000 for the North Pacific Fishery Observer Training 
     Center.
       $750,000 for the Hawaiian Fisheries Development Program.
       $300,000 for a New England Safe Seafood Program.
       $300,000 for the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation.
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
       Report earmarks the following projects:
       $1,000,000 for Southeast Atlantic marine monitoring and 
     prediction at the University of North Carolina;
       $1,500,000 for a tsunami warning and environmental 
     observatory at Shumigan Islands;
       $1,200,000 for ballast water research and small boat 
     portage zebra mussel dispersion problems in the Chesapeake 
     Bay and Great Lakes, including Lake Champlain;
       $250,000 for South Carolina Division of Marine Resources 
     Research on Coastal Urbanization Impacts;
       $240,000 for the Muskegon (MI) Lake Center;
       $200,000 for the New England airshed pollution study;
       $500,000 for the Gulf Coast Study on severe weather 
     impacts;
       $300,000 for the Lake Champlain study; and
       $1,000,000 for the Gulf of Mexico oyster initiative.
     NOAA Facilities
       Report earmarks $10,000,000 for conversion of two surplus 
     Navy Yard Torpedo Test vessels. One to be a replacement in 
     Charleston, SC for the research vessel Farrel, and one to be 
     located with and used by CICEET and the Joint Hydrography 
     Center at the Univ. Of New Hampshire.
     Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction
       Report earmarks $14,500,000 for Alaska facilities (of which 
     $1 million is for Juneau, $5 million is for Ship Creek, and 
     $8.5 million is for SeaLife Center.)


                             The Judiciary

       An earmark of $2,000,000 for the Bureau of Consular Affairs 
     Visa Office for planning, developing, and implementing and 
     information technology solution, the Olympic Visa Issuance 
     Database.
       $100,000 for the Montana Tech. Foreign Exchange Program.
       $1,000,000 for planning activities for the Paralympics and 
     Winter OIympic Games to be held in 2002.
       A $5,000,000 earmark for costs associated with hosting the 
     World Trade Organization conference in Seattle, WA.
       $9,353,000 for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which 
     includes $8,724,000 for the sea lamprey operations and 
     research program, of which not less than $200,000 shall be 
     used to treat Lake Champlain.
       $921,000 to replace an aerostat at Cudjoe Key, Florida that 
     was decommissioned in June, 1998.
       $10,000,000 for two rotatable transmitting antennas at the 
     IBB transmitting site in Greenville, NC.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to address the funding for the 
Judicial Branch for fiscal year 2000. The Appropriations Committee that 
worked on this budget has done an outstanding job with limited 
resources and very demanding budget requests. Senators Stevens, Gregg, 
Byrd, and Hollings, and their staffs, are to be commended for doing a 
very difficult job in a professional manner that does credit to the 
Senate.
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have a special interest in 
this budget. And I agree with most of the Senate bill. The Senate bill 
fully funds compensation for judges. This is required by the 
Constitution.
  The Senate bill fully funds judges' staffs. This is appropriate 
because judges cannot operate without their law clerks and secretaries.
  The Senate bill fully funds the rental costs of court facilities 
leased from the General Services Administration. This is appropriate 
because we must have courtrooms for judges and their staffs to work in.
  Further, the Senate bill appropriately reduces funding for certain 
expenditure requests that were not critically needed.
  However, the Senate bill underfunds court support staff and operating 
expenses for the circuit and district courts by a net 257 million 
dollars.
  The Judiciary's budget request was for maintaining the current level 
of services by support staff. The support staff is needed to handle 
high levels of criminal cases, bankruptcy cases, pretrial services, and 
supervised release services. These duties are not going away. The 
Judiciary is required by law to continue to address each of these 
areas. Moreover, I note that the Judiciary's budget request does not 
even take into account the increased workload that new legislation, 
like the Juvenile Crime Bill, will place on the federal courts.
  The Judiciary cannot maintain the current level of services in the 
Courts of Appeal and District Courts without some portion of the 257 
million dollar shortfall being replaced.
  I request that over the next few months we work together to provide 
the Judiciary with additional funding for support staff on the Courts 
of Appeal and the District Courts.
  I am also concerned about a deeper problem that exists with the 
budget process for the Judiciary.
  Current law requires the Executive Branch to submit the Judiciary's 
annual budget request to Congress ``without change.'' Nonetheless, the 
Administration's Office of Management and Budget indirectly decreases 
the Judiciary's budget request through the use of negative allowances.
  The Judicial Branch should be required to be responsible in its 
budget requests, and I believe they are. But, the Judicial Branch's 
budget should not be subject to reductions by the Executive Branch to 
fund the political priorities of the President. Current law prohibits 
such reductions, but the Administration does not follow this law. This 
is a systemic problem that I hope we can address in the future along 
with the Judiciary's current-year budget needs.
  As legislators, it is our duty under Article I of the Constitution to 
provide sufficient funds so that the federal courts established under 
Article III of the Constitution are effective and federal law is 
upheld. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to address these issues in the next few months.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
thank Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Commerce, State, Justice 
Appropriations Committee, as well as Senator Hollings, for their full 
support of the Crime Identification Technology Act in this 
appropriations bill. Their support represents a strong commitment to 
anti-crime measures that really work to reduce crime.
  This Act is a bipartisan law that Congress passed unanimously last 
year.

[[Page 17466]]

The Crime Identification Technology Act is based on the recognition 
that technology is the key to the future of police work. We can no 
longer continue to ask law enforcement to fight increasingly mobile and 
sophisticated criminals with outmoded twentieth-century Technology.
  The Crime Identification Technology Act will help state and local 
justice systems update and integrate their anti-crime technology 
systems and support their overburdened forensic crime laboratories. 
CITA authorizes $250 million to states and local governments each year, 
for five years, for crime technology. This effort is fully funded in 
this appropriation bill.
  State and local governments are at a crucial juncture in the 
development and integration of their criminal justice technology. This 
bill provides for system integration, permitting all components of the 
criminal justice system to share information and communicate more 
effectively, on a real-time basis.
  This is one of the wisest investments we could possibly make. I would 
like to emphasize three reasons for this. First, crime technology, in 
itself, is crucial to making significant reductions in the crime rates 
in our communities. Second, we can use this opportunity to leverage the 
Federal Government's investments in national anti-crime systems that 
require state participation, such as the Integrated Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System, the National Criminal Information 
Center 2000, and the National Integrated Ballistics Information 
Network. We have literally invested billions of dollars in national 
systems. That is a key reason why so many organizations have applauded 
the appropriators' support of anti-crime technology, including the 
International Association of Police Chiefs, National Governor's 
Association, National League of Cities, American Society of Crime 
Laboratory Directors, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and 
our states' information repository directors in the National Consortium 
of Justice & Information Statistics.
  Third, but certainly not last, there is a tremendous need to 
consolidate the patchwork of Federal programs, which have funded 
specific areas of anti-crime technology to the exclusion of others. A 
recent GAO report identified more than $1.2 billion in direct and 
indirect support to state and local governments; however, the absence 
of coordination and integration of both systems and funding means that 
if we continue the current system of disparate funding streams, there 
will never be enough money or integration. Too many existing Federal 
programs mandate specific technology spending, instead of allowing 
states the flexibility to meet their respective anti-crime technology 
needs within the type of broad framework which the Crime Identification 
Technology Act. CITA offers a dedicated, coordinated stream of funding 
to help states develop and upgrade their anti-crime technology from the 
patchwork of existing programs, and utilize the technical assistance of 
agencies who have developed technological expertise. I believe that 
this will greatly increase accountability and efficiency.
  The bottom line for me, based on my more than 25 years in law 
enforcement, is that fully employing our anti-crime technology today 
will help law enforcement solve more crime, more rapidly, and pursue 
increasingly sophisticated, mobile criminals.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Gregg, and Senator Leahy and Senator 
Hatch for their strong support of the Crime Identification Technology 
Act and its appropriation. I would also like to extend my personal 
thanks to Senator Gregg's staff, particularly Jim Morhard and Eric 
Harnschteger for making the best of a very difficult funding situation.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.


                  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Snowe 
to voice my deep concerns regarding the substantial cut to the economic 
Development Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget. The FY 2000 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill being considered by the 
Senate cuts EDA's budget by $164.1 million--from $392.4 million in FY 
1999 to $228.3 million for FY 2000. This represents a 42 percent cut. 
Clearly, this reduction will have a dramatic affect on the EDA's 
ability to serve distressed rural and urban communities in states like 
Arkansas, New Hampshire, Maine, Alaska, New Mexico, Kentucky, and 
Colorado.
  My colleagues will remember that last November we passed the Economic 
Development Administration Reform Act of 1998. In response, the EDA has 
become a more efficient and effective agency by reducing regulations by 
60 percent; they have trimmed the period of processing applications to 
60 days; and they are now requiring applicants to demonstrate both 
eligibility and need at the time of application. I firmly believe that 
these achievements will only strengthen the EDA's history of providing 
critical assistance to distressed areas.
  In its 34 years of service to Americans, the EDA has created 2.9 
million private sector jobs; investing $16.8 billion in distressed 
communities. Currently, every $1 invested by the EDA generates $3 in 
outside investment. With an administrative overhead of less than 8%, 
more Americans in economically distressed areas benefit from their tax 
dollars.
  This is good news for my home state. As a rural state with many 
economically distressed communities, Arkansas relies heavily on the EDA 
and their invaluable services. Sam Spearman, who heads EDA in Arkansas, 
is a true servant and a great asset to my constituents. From the 
tornadoes that tore through northeast and central Arkansas this 
January, to the Levi-Strauss and Arrow Automotive closing in Morrilton, 
Arkansas, the EDA is helping communities stay alive. To help grow the 
economies in some depressed areas, the EDA has been assisting in 
planning and developing inter-modal facilities in Marion and West 
Memphis.
  My state was not immune to BRAC in the early 1990s. A Strategic Air 
Command bomber base in Blytheville and an Army training facility in 
Fort Smith were closed. As a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I am happy to report to my colleagues that both communities 
are slowly recovering, but not without ongoing assistance from EDA.
  Again, last November we passed legislation to restructure and reform 
the EDA. I believe that they have responded well to Congressional 
direction, however, reducing their funding by 42% greatly limits their 
ability to implement the changes we thought were necessary. I thank my 
colleagues and hope that they will support increasing funding to EDA in 
FY 2000.

                          ____________________