[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 25125-25137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The clerk will report the 
conference report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate on the bill H.R. 
     4942, ``Making appropriations for the government of the 
     District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole 
     or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes'', 
     having met, have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the 
     same with an amendment, signed by a majority of the conferees 
     on the part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The report was printed in the House proceedings of the Record of 
October 25, 2000.)


                     fbi's jewelry and gem program

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I commend my friend and colleague from 
Hew Hampshire, Senator Gregg, for his effective leadership on this 
important Commerce, Justice, State appropriations conference report. 
The Senate version of the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations bill included a recommendation of up to $2.2 million for 
the FBI's Jewelry and Gem Program within funds available for Organized 
Criminal Enterprises, OCE, to address crimes against jewelry vendors 
who have proven easy targets for thieves, including organized South 
American gangs. The House report on the bill encourages the FBI to 
continue to allocate sufficient resources to disrupting these criminal 
enterprises. This program is designed to protect small businesses and 
the lives of employees in this field from violent crime. The conference 
agreement adopts the House position, but it is my understanding that 
the FBI decided to commit significant funds to combating these crimes 
in fiscal year 2000. Therefore, the conference agreement should be 
understood to recommend the FBI make available sufficient funds for the 
Jewelry and Gem Program. May I ask my distinguished colleague from New 
Hampshire, the chairman of our subcommittee and our Senate conferees, 
if my understanding is correct?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, my distinguished colleague from Colorado 
is correct. The conference agreement should be read to recommend that 
the FBI expend sufficient funds for OCE on combating the crimes 
addressed by the Jewelry and Gem Program.


                              fast program

 Mr. BURNS. Madam President, the conference report for the 
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill provides 
that $5 million is appropriated for the Small Business Innovation 
Research (SBIR) Rural Outreach Program at the Small Business 
Administration, SBA. Given how this legislation evolved, I believe that 
clarification is needed as to how the Conferees intend that the SBA 
spend such money.
  Next year, there will be two programs at the SBA that focus on small 
high-technology business outreach: The Federal and State Technology 
Partnership (FAST) program and the SBIR Rural Outreach Program. While 
the FAST program and the Rural Outreach Program share the similar goal 
of facilitating the development of small high-technology businesses, 
they are separate programs and the FAST program is much broader in 
scope than the Rural Outreach Program. The FAST program is a 
competitive matching-grant program that provides states with wide 
latitude to develop strategies to assist in the growth of their small 
business high-technology sectors. In contrast, the Rural Outreach 
Program is targeted at only those states that receive the fewest SBIR 
awards and is limited to funding activities to encourage small firms in 
those states to participate in the SBIR program. My state of Montana 
has benefitted greatly from the Rural Outreach Program and it is very 
important that this program be funded.
  The FAST program, which has been included in SBIR legislation that 
has been separately passed by both the Senate and the House and which I 
anticipate will be enacted prior to Congress adjourning, was initially 
appropriated $5 million in the bill reported out of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. In the conference report, it appears that the 
funds appropriated for both the FAST program and the Rural Outreach 
Program were inadvertently combined under the general heading of 
funding for the Rural Outreach Program. This is apparent because $5 
million is targeted in the conference report for the Rural Outreach 
Program, while the authorization for that program is only $2 million. I 
am concerned that without clarification about how

[[Page 25126]]

the SBA is required to spend such funds, that the SBA will use excess 
amounts for programs other than the FAST program and the Rural Outreach 
Program. Accordingly, am I correct in my interpretation that funding 
for the FAST Program was combined with funding for the Rural Outreach 
Program in the conference report and that the Conferees intend that the 
$5 million be used to support both programs?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, the interpretation is correct. Both of these programs 
provide support for high-technology businesses and, therefore, both 
have been funded under the general topic of SBIR Rural Outreach. Thank 
you for bringing to our attention that clarification.
  Mr. BURNS. I know that there is substantial support for both of these 
programs. Can you tell me how the conferees intend that the SBA spend 
the $5 million on the Rural Outreach Program and the FAST program?
  Mr. GREGG. My understanding is that the intent of the conferees is 
that $1.5 million of the total amount be spent on the Rural Outreach 
Program and $3.5 million be spent on the FAST program.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator for the clarification.


                         grocery slotting fees

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the conference report that includes 
fiscal year 2001 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations picks up some 
Senate report language providing up to $900,000 for completion of a 
Federal Trade Commission investigation into slotting allowances and 
fair competition in the retail grocery business.
  I understand that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] originally 
requested that language. I would like to engage the Senator from 
Missouri and the chairman of the subcommittee [Mr. Gregg] in a colloquy 
simply to clarify the scope and intent of that provision.
  Because this language is brief, I wanted to make sure it would not be 
misread to suggest that we are providing these funds for use in any 
company-specific investigation.
  It is my understanding that committee's intent is for the FTC to use 
these funds solely to undertake a general study, collecting 
comprehensive data on the current competitive environment related to 
such practices, assessing their impact, and reporting back to Congress 
on appropriate policy considerations.
  I am concerned that our current understanding of the practice of 
slotting fees, as well as the payment of other discounts, fees, and 
promotional allowances, is still limited. A thorough understanding of 
industry practices and their effects should inform policymaking.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The Small Business Committee, which 
I chair, has invested considerable time and effort working on this 
issue. While we have made much progress, many of the facts surrounding 
this practice remain shrouded, and little hard data has been produced 
to gauge slotting's impact, especially on small businesses and small 
farmers. For example, at a recent hearing, the General Accounting 
Office reported it has been unable to collect data needed to prepare a 
thorough analysis of the practice. The FTC, however, would have the 
legal authority under Section 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to 
collect the data necessary to continue with a full and complete 
analysis of these practices and their impacts.
  This funding was requested for the purpose of the FTC preparing a 
comprehensive report to Congress, pursuant to Section 6 of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act, that outlines the appropriate policy 
considerations arising from this issue. The report should concentrate 
on industry-wide practices of retailers that engage in the sale of 
grocery items with respect to slotting allowances and other similar 
practices including, without limitation: Their impact on competition 
and retail prices; their impact on all forms of grocery retailing, 
including smaller grocery retailers; their impact on manufacturers and 
suppliers; and their relationship to consolidation in the retail 
grocery industry.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senators are correct. The intent of the committee in 
originally providing for this funding in the Senate-reported 
appropriations is as the Senators have described it. The conference 
report maintains the Senate position. I would also state it is our 
expectation that the FTC provide this report to Congress no later than 
sixteen months from the date of enactment of this legislation.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for clarifying the committee's intent.
  I want to add my personally strong feeling that it would be 
inappropriate for the FTC to launch individualized investigations and 
enforcement actions on the basis of notions about industry practices 
that are not-fully-informed, before it can sort out what appropriate 
law and policy should be. Unfocused, premature, or ad hoc actions could 
be counterproductive, possibly disrupting markets and chilling some 
positive industry practices that actually benefit consumers. It is 
important now for the FTC to focus on resolving uncertainties and 
acquiring a better understanding the facts, law, market practices, and 
impacts related to these issues.


                  medical corrections options program

  Mr. MACK. Madam President, last year the Commerce, Justice, State and 
Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee included funding for the Southern 
Florida Medical Corrections Options Program, which began operations 
this spring. Working with the Broward County Mental Health Court and 
the Broward County Sheriff's office it has had tremendous success in 
treating mentally ill misdemeanants and preventing recidivism. My 
colleague from Hawaii shares my interest in the program because Hawaii 
faces many of the same challenges as Florida in treating mentally ill 
misdemeanants.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, my colleague from Florida is correct. 
Together, we are seeking to expand the South Florida Medical 
Corrections Options Program to initiate a Hawaii program that will 
enhance our knowledge in this field. We are also seeking to provide 
much needed data for the eventual expansion of the national mental 
health court program.
  Mr. MACK. The Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce, State, Justice and the 
Judiciary Appropriations Committee Report includes a number of programs 
that the committee has encouraged the Bureau of Justice Assistance 
(BJA) to examine and fund, if possible, under the Edward Byrne Memorial 
Discretionary Grants Program. I am hopeful that the BJA will consider 
funding for the joint Hawaii/Florida demonstration project to develop a 
national model for future mental health courts.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague for his support in expanding this 
important project into the State of Hawaii, and would appreciate the 
agreement of the Chairman to support this project for funding 
consideration.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank my colleagues from Florida and Hawaii and would 
like to clarify that the BJA should consider funding under the Edward 
Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grants Program for this joint Hawaii/
Florida demonstration project.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his comments.


                            land acquisition

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I would like to inquire of the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and 
Related Agencies, Senator Hollings, about a particular provision of the 
conference report.
  The conference report to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2001 specified that $1 million is available for 
land acquisition in Raritan, New Jersey under the National Estuarine 
Research Reserve system.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. As I understand it, the intent of this language is to 
allow for the purchase of specific parcels of wetland habitat in the 
Raritan Bay region of New Jersey. The Raritan Bay area in Monmouth 
County, New Jersey, is the area of focus of this provision, not Raritan 
Borough in Somerset County, New Jersey nor Raritan Township which is 
located in

[[Page 25127]]

Hunterdon County. In addition, the intent of this provision is for the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Estuarine 
Research System to work cooperatively with the State of New Jersey to 
coordinate the acquisition and management of these lands.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is again, correct on both points. As the 
Senator from New Jersey has stated, the intent of this provision is to 
allow NOAA to work with the State of New Jersey to acquire lands along 
the Raritan Bay for inclusion in the National Estuarine Research 
Reserve System.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the ranking member for clarifying the meaning 
of this provision.


                                  CARA

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have a question about a last minute 
change in language of the appropriations measure establishing a Coastal 
Impact Assistance program as section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act. The Coastal Impact Assistance program, with relatively few 
changes, is identical to language referred to and reported by the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as part of H.R. 701, the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000, commonly referred to as 
CARA. The last minute change I am concerned about places the Secretary 
of Commerce in charge of the Coastal Impact Assistance program rather 
than the Secretary of the Interior. Both the House of Representatives, 
when it passed CARA, and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
when it reported CARA to the Senate, placed responsibility for Coastal 
Impact Assistance with the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of 
the Interior has the overall responsibility under the Outer Continental 
Shelf Lands Act for the leasing program that creates the impact on our 
coastal communities that Coastal Impact assistance seeks to address and 
is also the source of revenues to fund not only such assistance but 
also various conservation programs that were included under CARA. I do 
not understand why the change was made, but I want to make certain that 
the change has no effect on the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources over the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and 
especially exclusive jurisdiction over the Coastal Impact Assistance 
program established under section 31 of that act.
  Mr. LOTT. I can assure the Senator that the change has absolutely no 
effect on the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources over that program. As the Senator knows, at one time there 
were discussions about adding the entire CARA package to the Interior 
appropriation bill. The allocation of funding required us to add this 
portion, which includes Coastal Impact Assistance, to the Commerce 
appropriation. The change made in what Secretary disburses the funds 
does not alter in any manner the nature of the program, the purposes of 
the program, or the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources over the program.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I fully agree with the response from the majority 
leader. Whether the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
Commerce or the Secretary of the Treasury makes the disbursements has 
absolutely no effect on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources over this program. The Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources has jurisdiction over the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act and was the committee that originally reported the Coastal 
Impact Assistance program as part of the CARA legislation. The fact 
that we have funded the first year through the Department of Commerce 
has absolutely no effect on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources over the Coastal Impact Assistance 
program, including oversight and any future changes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me add as chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations that we were not in any manner attempting to alter the 
jurisdiction of the authorizing committees over any programs. As a 
result of the agreement made on the Interior appropriations bill, we 
were forced to fund the Coastal Impact Assistance program on the 
Commerce appropriations measure. To do that, we needed to include 
authorizing language. We took the language that had been reported by 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with only minor 
alterations. There was a last minute change to insert a definition of 
``Secretary'' for the purposes of the new section 31 of the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to be the Secretary of Commerce. All that 
change does, is alter who will disburse the funding to the coastal 
States. I can assure all my colleagues that there was no intent to 
alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
over the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or its exclusive 
jurisdiction over the Coastal Impact Assistance program that is 
established as a new section 31 of that act.
  Mr. BYRD. I also agree with these comments. The Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources has jurisdiction over ``Extraction of minerals 
from oceans and Outer Continental Shelf lands'' under Rule XXV(g)(1)6. 
of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Pursuant to that authority, it has 
jurisdiction over the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation continues to have jurisdiction 
under Rule XXV(f)(1) over ``Transportation and commerce aspects of 
Outer Continental Shelf lands''. The Coastal Impact Assistance program, 
which will now be section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 
is an important and necessary component of our leasing program on the 
Outer Continental Shelf and is certainly within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. How we choose to route the 
funding for this program is incidental and has nothing to do with the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. As the 
minority leader noted, it is immaterial whether the Secretary of the 
Interior or the Secretary of Commerce or some other officer is 
responsible, the program remains exclusively within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam 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.
  This bill provides funding for fighting crime, enhancing drug 
enforcement, and responding to threats of terrorism. It further funds 
the operation of the District of Columbia, addresses some of 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.
  Unfortunately, for the second time in a month, I must express my 
dismay over the process whereby the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act 
(LIFA) has been considered by this Congress. Like many Americans who 
believe policies that reflect compassion and family values should apply 
to immigrants and U.S. citizens alike, I welcome inclusion of the Legal 
Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act in this bill. But I had hoped that 
this legislation would supplement, rather than substitute for, the 
Fairness bill, which is far broader. I am disappointed that members of 
my party refused to include LIFA in this bill. As a consequence, 
hundreds of thousands of hard-working, tax-paying members of our 
society will be denied the amnesty, parity, and family-unification 
protections of LIFA. I will continue to work for passage of the Latino 
and Immigrant Fairness Act and trust that, next year, we can pass it on 
the Senate floor.
  Regretfully, I must oppose this measure.
  There are hundreds of millions of dollars in pork-barrel spending and 
the legislative riders that are riddled throughout this bill. The 
multitude of unrequested earmarks buried in this measure 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 at the expense of numerous programs that have undergone the

[[Page 25128]]

appropriate merit-based selection process.
  For example, under funding for the Department of Justice, some 
examples of earmarks include: $130,000 to Jackson City, Mississippi, 
for public safety and automated technologies related to law 
enforcement; $2 million for the Alaska Native Justice Center; $15 
million for an education and development initiative to promote criminal 
justice excellence at Eastern Kentucky University in conjunction with 
the University of Kentucky; and $4 million for the West Virginia 
University Forensic Identification program.
  Under funding for the Department of Commerce, some of the earmarks 
include: $500,000 for the International Pacific Research Center at the 
University of Hawaii; $855,000 for weather radio transmitters in 
Kentucky; $2.5 million for the Center for Spatial Data Research at 
Jackson State University; $500,000 for the South Carolina Geodetic 
Survey; and $500,000 for the California Ozone Study.
  And the list of questionable spending goes on with even more funding 
for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. For example: 
$3 million for the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command to implement the 
public safety master plan for the Olympics; $5 million for the Utah 
Communication Agency Network for enhancements and upgrades of security 
and communication infrastructure to assist with law enforcement needs 
of the Olympics; and $590,000 for the NOAA Cooperative Institute for 
Regional Prediction at the University of Utah to implement data 
collection and automated weather station installation in preparation 
for the Olympics.
  There are many more projects on the list that I have compiled, which 
will be available on my Senate Website.
  I also want to address the legislative riders in this bill. In 
particular, I want to express my disappointment that legislation 
restricting low-power FM services has been added behind closed doors to 
this appropriations conference report. The addition of this rider 
illustrates, once again, how the special interests of a few are allowed 
to dominate the voices of the many in the back-door dealings of the 
appropriations process.
  Low-power FM radio service provides community-based organizations, 
churches and other non-profit groups with a new, affordable opportunity 
to reach out to the public, helping to promote a greater awareness 
within our communities. Low-power FM is supported by the U.S. 
conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the Consumers' 
Union and many religious organizations, including the U.S. Catholic 
Conference and the United Church of Christ. These institutions support 
low-power FM because they see what low-power FM's opponents also know 
to be true--that these stations will make more programming available to 
the public, and provide outlets for news and perspectives not currently 
featured on local radio stations.
  But, the special interests opposed to low-power FM--most notably the 
National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio--have 
mounted a vigorous behind-the-scenes campaign against this service. 
Their stated objection to this service is potential interference, of 
course, not potential competition. They claim that a 10 or 100 watt low 
power station that can only broadcast a few miles will ``bleed into'' 
and overpower the signal of nearby 100,000 watt full-power radio 
stations that broadcast about 70 miles. Interestingly, the FCC, the 
expert government agency that evaluates such radio interference claims, 
does not share this claimed concern. To the contrary, after developing 
an extensive record and evaluating these alleged technical concerns, 
the FCC proceeded with licensing and established procedures to address 
any interference issues that actually arose.
  Moreover, competitors' speculations about potential interference from 
low-power stations were given a fair hearing not only in the FCC, but 
also in this Congress. Earlier this year, Senator Kerry and I 
introduced the Low Power FM Radio Act of 2000, which would have struck 
a fair balance between allowing low-power radio stations to go forward 
while at the same time protecting existing full-power stations from 
actual interference. Under our bill, low-power stations causing 
interference would be required to stop causing interference--or be shut 
down--but non-interfering low power FM stations would be allowed to 
operate without further delay. The opponents of low-power FM did not 
support this bill because they want low-power FM to be dead rather than 
functional.
  Congress should not permit the appropriations process to circumvent 
the normal legislative process. Every time we do this, the American 
people lose more faith in us. And in this context, they will become 
even more cynical when they learn that special interests like the NAB 
were able to use the appropriations process to highjack and overturn 
the sound technical decisions by the government radio experts that 
would have authorized new outlets for religious and political speech--
and new outlets for their local churches and community groups.
  Low-power FM is an opportunity for minorities, churches and others to 
have a new voice in radio broadcasting. In the Commerce Committee, we 
constantly lament the fact that minorities, community-based 
organizations, and religious organizations do not have adequate 
opportunities to communicate their views. Over the years, I have often 
heard many members of both the Committee and this Senate lament the 
enormous consolidation that has occurred in the telecommunications 
sector as a whole and the radio industry specifically. Here, we had a 
chance to get out of the way, and allow non-interfering low-power radio 
stations to go forward to combat these concerns. Instead, we let 
special interests hide their competitive fears behind the smokescreen 
of hypothetical interference to severely wound--if not kill--this 
service in the dead of night.
  This report also contains legislation establishing a rural loan 
guarantee program intended to help bring broadcast signals to the most 
remote areas in this country. While I support this legislation, and I 
commend my friend, Senator Burns, for his leadership in this area, 
there is one aspect of this legislation that still causes me concern.
  This legislation would let incumbent cable monopolies qualify for 
U.S. taxpayer subsidized loans in the name of ``technology 
neutrality.'' Unfortunately, this approach will fail to achieve any 
real ``technology neutrality'' while simultaneously expanding a limited 
loan guaranty program into an unnecessary corporate welfare program.
  In a perfect world, a loan guaranty program would be equally 
available to every competing industry segment because this would ensure 
that no industry segment would benefit from a government-sanctioned 
advantage in the marketplace.
  Unfortunately, telecommunications law has already departed so 
significantly from principles of ``technology neutrality'' that 
``neutrality'' in the narrow field of taxpayer-subsidized loan 
guaranties will only increase the cost of the program for the benefit 
of previously favored technologies. Indeed, my experience has shown 
that in telecommunications technological neutrality has been sacrificed 
by a misplaced focus on protecting competitors at the expense of 
competition and the American consumer. For example, the broadcast 
industry has been given 70 billion dollars of free spectrum, yet the 
wireless industry must compete for spectrum at auction. And certain 
industry sectors, such as cable, have been given government-franchised 
monopolies. In the telecommunications world, some are already more 
equal than others.
  It is against this reality that any claims of ``technological 
neutrality'' must be evaluated. In the real world, cable companies not 
only have a government-sanctioned advantage--they have a government-
franchised monopoly. Monopolists, almost by definition, need no more 
government protection against competition. Perhaps it is just a 
coincidence, and not due to a lack of competition, but cable companies 
have

[[Page 25129]]

been able to raise their rates approximately three times the rate of 
inflation (for about a 30 percent total increase) since the 1996 
Telecommunications Act. This scenario hardly requires the helping hand 
of the U.S. taxpayer.
  ``Technology neutrality'' is a fine phrase, but not if it means that 
the American taxpayers must further subsidize industries that have 
already received undue and unnecessary market advantages sanctioned by 
the government.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard-
earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests and our 
inclusion of legislative riders which thwart the very process that is 
needed to ensure our laws address the concerns and interests of all 
Americans, not just a few who seek special protection or 
advantage.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, one of my priorities in this bill was to 
make sure that Washington seniors continue to have access to their 
Medicare+Choice program and to expand choices for other seniors who 
have been dropped from the program due to low payment rates in 
Washington state. We need to make sure Medicare+Choice is a stable 
option in the Medicare program for our seniors.
  I am concerned, however that the new requirements on the submission 
of adjusted community rate ACR proposals for 2001 may interfere with my 
goal of ensuring the stability of this program for seniors in my state. 
Under this bill, plans that have ensured seniors have consistent access 
to the Medicare+Choice program cannot use the increased funds to 
stabilize the benefits they already provide or to ensure adequate 
payments to providers such as doctors and hospitals--even if they are 
losing money on providing those benefits right now.
  In Washington State we have plans that are operating at a deficit 
every year but they continue to stick with this program and offer 
health care to our seniors. They need this money simply to stabilize 
and maintain current benefits. Without these funds, there will be no 
basic programs for seniors at all. Plans cannot offer enhanced benefits 
or lower premiums if there is no program in existence, in Washington 
state, that is what we are facing--the possibility of no 
Medicare+Choice programs at all.
  I don't disagree with the intent of the provision to ensure that 
seniors benefit from this new funding in the form of reduced premiums 
or increased benefits. My point is that there are more ways to help out 
seniors and one way is to ensure that their plan will not only be there 
this year, but the next year and into the future. One way to do that is 
to simply add a provision to the current language that allows plans to 
stabilize or enhance patients access to providers such as doctors and 
hospitals.
  You can spend millions of dollars on the fixtures of a new house, on 
antique furniture, on expensive paintings, and the like but if there is 
no foundation the house will fall to the ground and no one will 
benefit. Our first priority should be to ensure that the 
Medicare+Choice program is stabilized that at a minimum seniors 
continue to have the choice we promised them.
 Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I support the passage of the 
Commerce-Justice-State conference report, which includes a bill of 
critical importance to rural America, the ``Local TV Act.'' The Local 
TV Act will create a $1.25 billion loan guarantee program that will 
bring local TV signals to Montana and other rural states, over 
satellites or other technologies, in a fiscally responsible way.
  I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Banking 
Committee and the Majority Leaders in both the Senate and the House for 
helping to reach completion on this issue. I should add that Senator 
Leahy, Senator Hollings, Senator Thomas and Senator Grams have worked 
tirelessly on this matter. I would also like to thank my colleagues in 
the House for their efforts. Representative Goodlatte was involved in 
every stage of the complex negotiations that took place on this bill, 
as were House Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley, House 
Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Tauzin, House Agriculture 
Committee Chairman Combest and Representative Boucher. I thank them all 
for helping to reach such a positive result, which was only possible 
through an extraordinary, bipartisan effort.
  Providing access to local television signals is crucial to rural 
states. With over-the-air broadcast signals and cable delivery limited 
by the geography of my own state of Montana, satellite television has 
been a staple of our so-called ``video marketplace'' for many years. In 
fact, Montana has the highest penetration level of satellite television 
in the country at over 35 percent.
  I initially proposed legislation in this area because I was concerned 
that without it, only the largest television markets in America would 
receive local-into-local service authorized by the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvement Act. These are the profitable cities like New York 
and Los Angeles with millions of television households. Currently, only 
the 20 largest television markets are being offered local TV signals 
via satellite. The two largest direct broadcaster satellite providers 
have announced plans to offer service to an additional 20 or 30 large 
markets over the next few years.
  What about the other TV markets? There are 16 states--including my 
own--that do not have a single city among the top seventy markets. 
Because of the ``Local TV Act,'' they will now no longer be left out of 
the information age just because they are smaller.
  The ability to receive local television signals is more than just 
having access to local sports or entertainment programming. It is a 
critical and immediate way to receive important local news, weather and 
community information. Access to local signals is particularly critical 
in Montana, where we experienced severe flooding last fall and sudden 
blizzards are always a possibility.
  The ``Local TV Act'' reflects the belief that the loan guarantee 
program should not favor one technology over another and it should not 
pose a burden to the taxpayer. The ``Local TV Act'' is a win for 
consumers and for taxpayers. Earlier this year, the bill passed the 
Senate 97-0, a similar version passed the House by an overwhelming 
margin and I again thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
reaching agreement on this critical matter.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I would like to take a moment and join 
my subcommittee chairman and colleague, Senator Gregg, in commenting on 
the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and 
related agencies appropriations portion of the conference report before 
the Senate today. Once, again, I would like to commend Chairman Gregg 
for his outstanding efforts and bipartisan approach in bring an 
appropriations bill to the floor that is good and balanced.
  Putting together the conference report is always a tremendous 
challenge, and this year has proven to be no different. We face the 
challenge of adequately funding a host of varying missions, This bill 
funds efforts to fight crime and drugs on our streets. This bill funds 
initiatives that enhance business opportunities for small and large 
companies at home and abroad. This bill funds agencies like the FTC and 
the SEC that protect consumers from fraud. This bill provides funding 
for scientific research needed for better fisheries management. This 
bill provides free and accurate weather forecasting to farmers who rely 
on it day by day for tending their crops and to families who live in 
areas where timely and accurate forecasts can save their lives from 
violent tornadoes, torrential rains, floods, and hurricanes. While the 
missions funded through this bill may vary, one point remains constant: 
The funding provided in this bill seeks to improve the daily lives and 
safety of all American at home and abroad.
  In total, the conference report provides $38.0 billion in budget 
authority which is about $1.7 billion less in total budget authority 
than the fiscal year 2000 levels. The bill is $12.9 billion less than 
the President's request level;

[[Page 25130]]

however, his request level, as in past years, included advanced 
appropriations, which the CJS Subcommittee traditionally does not 
provide.
  Senator Gregg has mentioned many of the funding specifics in this 
bill, so I will not repeat the details; however, I would like to point 
out to our colleagues some of the highlights of this bill:


                      justice and law enforcement

  The conference report provides $21.1 billion for the Department of 
Justice, including $3.3 billion for the FBI, $1.3 billion for the DEA, 
$4.8 billion for INS, $4.3 billion for BOP, and $4.6 billion for the 
Office of Justice Programs. This conference report funds both block 
grant programs--such as Byrne, local law enforcement, and juvenile 
justice--and the COPS Program--such as the universal hiring and 
technology components. Our colleagues in the Senate only need to review 
the FBI's preliminary annual uniform crime report released this past 
May to appreciate how well all these programs are working. According to 
the FBI's report, in 1999, serious crime dropped for an eighth 
consecutive year, down seven-percent from the year before. This is the 
longest running crime decline on record. The successful reduction in 
crime in no small way must be attributed to the bipartisan efforts to 
fund DOJ's crime fighting initiatives during the past ten years.
  In an effort to continue the decline in serious crime, we continue to 
fund many of the programs that are working. Not only are we funding 
cops on the beat, we also continue the safe schools initiative which 
Senator Gregg and I started two years ago. This bill provides $227.5 
million for this initiative. Madam President, we cannot allow violence 
or the threat of violence to turn our schools into a hostile setting 
that prevents our students from obtaining the education they deserve. 
The bill before the Senate provides increased funding from last year's 
levels, through the Office of Justice programs, to continue the hiring 
of school resource officers, and the implementation of community-based 
planning and prevention activities. This initiative is working but 
there is much more that has to be done, and this increased funding will 
continue our efforts to return our schools to a safe place for children 
to learn.
  I am pleased to see in this year's conference report $1.3 billion 
funding for the DEA, which is a $69.45 million increase from last 
year's level. This funding is aimed at combating the latest battle in 
the war on drugs--methamphetamines. Included in the DEA fundings is 
$25.9 million for personnel and operations to combat the production and 
use of methamphetamines. Also included in the bill is $28.5 million for 
State and local law enforcement to combat methamphetamine production 
and $2.5 million for equipment. Another $20.0 million will be 
transferred from the COPS Hot Spots Program to reimburse the agency for 
the costs associated with assisting State and local law enforcement in 
meth lab cleanup.
  The conference report also includes $288.7 million for the violence 
against women program, which includes $31.6 million for civil legal 
assistance, $25 million for rural domestic violence programs, $11.5 
million for court appointed special advocates, and $11.0 million for 
college campus programs.
  There is one issue within the Department of Justice for which I am 
disappointed we did not provide funding--the Justice Department's 
Lawsuit against the Tobacco industry. I appreciate Senator Gregg's 
effort to reach a middle ground between those members who want to 
prevent DOJ from bringing a lawsuit, and those who want to provide DOJ 
with adequate resources to do their job. It is the U.S. court's 
responsibility to weigh the evidence and decide whether the tobacco 
companies have broken the law, not Congress's responsibility. In fact, 
just recently, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia 
rules that DOJ does have standing to bring a suit against the tobacco 
companies under the RICO (racketeering, influence, and corrupt 
organizations) Act. It is Congress's responsibility to provide the 
Justice Department with the tools and adequate resources it needs to do 
its job. This conference report does not do that.


                         department of commerce

  The conference report provides $4.7 billion for the Commerce 
Department, an increase of $460 million above last year's funding 
level. We provide $337.4 million for ITA, and while we could not fully 
fund all of the President's request for this important administration, 
we did provide funding for the trade compliance initiatives. I also 
appreciate Senator Gregg's support for language requiring the USTR to 
assist the Import Administration with office space in Geneva given the 
importance of the Import Administration's responsibilities relating to 
antidumping and countervailing duties.
  While we did not fully fund the administration's new internet access 
initiatives for NTIA, we did provide more than $100 million in funding 
for the NTIA to continue its core missions--funding for digital 
conversion, and funding for infrastructure grants.
  Regarding technology, the bill includes $312.6 million for NIST 
scientific and technical research and services. Under NIST, the 
Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is funded at a program level of 
$190.7 million, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
Program is funded at $105.1 million.
  The conference report also provides $3.1 billion for NOAA, more than 
$700 million above last year's level, and $850 million above the House 
level for FY 2001. I appreciate Chairman Gregg's support and efforts to 
insure that we maintain a focus on our oceans and coast. I have made it 
clear this year that I am disappointed in the administration's request 
for NOAA. Most of the funding increases requested this year were for 
community assistance type programs--making NOAA a mini-EDA--and not the 
science and research missions that have been NOAA's trademark during 
the past three decades. The budget request was particularly 
disappointing given the one hundred plus lawsuits currently pending 
against NOAA due to a lack of scientific data.
  Madam President, at present, we generate more than 30% of our gross 
domestic product from coastal areas, and nearly one out of every six 
jobs is marine-related. By the end of this decade, about 60% of 
Americans will live along our coasts. We cannot ignore the stress and 
strain of this growth on our coastal environment, and we must continue 
to strive for better management of our marine resources. Of course, 
these efforts are nothing new. Three decades ago, our nation roared 
into space, investing tens of billions of dollars in that effort. 
During that golden era of science, some of us also recognized the 
importance of exploring the seas and protecting the coasts on our own 
planet. In 1966, Congress enacted the Marine Resources and Engineering 
Development Act in order to define national objectives and programs 
with respect to the oceans. One of the central elements of the 1966 act 
was establishment of a Presidential commission, called the Stratton 
Commission, to develop a plan for national action in the oceans and 
atmosphere. The Stratton Commission laid the foundation for U.S. ocean 
and coastal policy and programs and has guided their development for 
three decades. Their report led to the creation of NOAA and laid the 
groundwork for science and research and for management regimes that are 
the cornerstone of our efforts to properly manage our fisheries, and 
protect our coasts today. This conference report fully funds all of 
NOAA's base science and research missions.
  FY 2001 funding for NOAA also includes additional funds for coastal 
conservation reflecting this year's coastal funding proposals in 
Congress (``CARA'') and the administration's budget (``lands legacy''). 
The $420 million in increased funding includes $135 million for 
specific conservation projects and $135 million to strengthen NOAA's 
efforts to conserve and protect our coral reefs, national marine 
sanctuaries and reserves, as well as fisheries and coastal habitats. 
This $135 million infusion of funding in the coming year will greatly 
benefit NOAA's important coastal stewardship programs throughout the 
Nation. The increased coastal funding also includes

[[Page 25131]]

$150 million to assist those States whose coastal areas are adversely 
affected by offshore oil development.


                          department of state

  The conference report includes a total of $7.1 billion for the 
Department of State and related agencies, an increase of $1.3 billion 
above last year's funding level of $5.8 billion. Within the State 
Department account, $1.1 billion has been provided for worldwide 
security upgrades of State Department facilities. Additionally, the 
bill provides $846 million to continue our Nation's international 
peacekeeping activities.


                                summary

  In closing let me say again that except for a one or two major policy 
issues this is a decent bill. Many--but not all--of the 
administration's priorities were addressed to some extent. Likewise 
many--but not all--of the priorities of our colleagues were addressed 
to some extent. It is with regret that I cannot support this bill at 
this time. I cannot support an effort that starts down the slippery 
slope of the U.S. Congress telling the Department of Justice who they 
can and cannot sue. It is my hope that this issue will be corrected 
should this conference report pass the Senate and be vetoed by the 
President.
  I would like to take a moment before closing to acknowledge and thank 
Senator Gregg's staff--Jim Morhard, Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Dana 
Quam, Clayton Heil, and Katherine Hennesey--and my staff--Lila Helms 
and Sonia King--for their hard work and diligence in bringing together 
a bill that does everything I have just mentioned and more. They have 
worked nonstop in a straightforward and bipartisan manner, to deliver 
the bill that is before the Senate today. This bill could not have come 
together without their efforts and I thank them for all of their hard 
work.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I want to speak about the appropriations 
agreement for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2001. This bill is part 
of the D.C. Appropriations bill and I thank the Senator from Texas for 
her help on this matter and everyone else on the subcommittee.
  I cannot tell you how hard we have tried to work with OMB and the 
White House on this bill. I find it hard to believe that they want to 
veto the bill based on what is in here. The main issue they have 
difficulty with is on immigration and it was never requested by the 
President and is not an appropriations matter.
  This bill does include $38.0 billion for these agencies. I believe 
the funding levels in this bill will allow the departments and agencies 
funded by it to fulfill their mandates.
  The first title in this bill is the Department of Justice. We provide 
$21 billion, an increase over last year's level. Within Justice, there 
are a number of issues that stand out.
  This bill provides comprehensive counter drug funding. It is our goal 
to provide the resources to protect our communities from the violence 
associated with illegal drugs. One of the most prevalent concerns in 
this area is the production of methamphetamine. The Drug Enforcement 
Agency (DEA) has reported an increase in clandestine lab seizures 
nationwide. In 1997, 3,327 labs were seized by Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement. By 1999, that number had escalated to 7,060.
  Although the number of clandestine methamphetamine labs has almost 
doubled since 1997, the President included no funding to combat 
methamphetamine production, trafficking, and use in his FY 2001 budget 
request. We remedy that mistake here.
  Our recommendation includes a total of $76.9 million for 
methamphetamine initiatives. We provide $25.9 million for 
investigations and day to day operations on methamphetamine cases, 
including maintaining a database of labs around the country.
  Since the bi-products from methamphetamine production are hazardous, 
explosions or fires often result and specially equipped teams are sent 
in to clean-up the lab sites. We provide $20 million to the DEA through 
the COPS Methamphetamine Drug Hot Spots Program for clean-up 
activities. We have also made available for State and local law 
enforcement agencies $28.5 million for their methamphetamine 
enforcement and cleanup efforts.
  Of course, methamphetamines are not the only problem. We provide 
$28.8 million to DEA for its heroin-related efforts. Because drug 
traffickers are highly adaptive, we must have the ability to respond 
where ``hot spots'' arise. The bill provides $24.2 million for Regional 
Drug Enforcement Teams and $53.9 million for Mobile Enforcement Teams.
  To aid those communities that have suffered because of the presence 
of drug dealers, we provide $34.0 million in direct funding for the 
Weed and Seed program. This program distributes grant funding to 
qualified neighborhoods so that they can weed out criminals in their 
communities while seeding new prevention and intervention services to 
help revitalize the neighborhood.
  The drug problem in the United States is so pervasive that over 480 
drug courts have evolved to handle these particular cases. This bill 
includes $50.0 million through the Office of Justice Programs for drug 
courts; additional funding can be obtained through the Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grants or the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants.
  Moving on to another important program in this bill, we continue the 
Safe Schools Initiative. This initiative was one the Ranking Member and 
I sponsored in 1999 just after the Columbine massacre. For fiscal year 
2001, we provide a total of $227.5 million for State school programs 
with $180.0 million for school resource officers and $15.0 million for 
school technology. This program gives school administrators resources 
to enhance safety measures. It grants them the flexibility to implement 
decisions on how best to maintain a safe learning environment without 
impacting funding for educational programs.
  The final agreement contains funding for after-school youth programs. 
A leader in this category is the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. For 
this reason, $60.0 million is available for their programs.
  Additionally, Juvenile Mentoring Programs, JUMP, receive $16.0 
million. These programs, including Big Brothers/Big Sisters, foster 
healthy relationships between at risk youth and responsible adults.
  The next item is of particular interest to me. The Missing Children 
program is one that continues to show positive results, and is funded 
at a level of $23.0 million. Within this amount, $6.5 million is 
provided for investigative cyber units for State and local law 
enforcement agencies and $11.4 million for the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children.
  One of the Center's most valuable resources is the Cyber TipLine, 
which allows individuals to report information about missing children 
on-line. Information reported to the Center is compiled and made 
accessible to law enforcement officers all over the continent. The 
Center dedicates significant resources to preventing and responding to 
incidents of cyber stalking. Overall, this bill includes more than 
$830.0 million for juvenile programs through the Office of Justice 
programs, the juvenile justice budget, and the COPS program.
  Our dedication to communities and families is also captured in our 
support of the Violence Against Women Act programs, which address 
domestic violence and its effects. For fiscal year 2001, we fund the 
program at $288.7 million. This includes funding for legal assistance, 
rural domestic violence initiatives, and court-appointed-special 
advocates.
  At my request, this bill also recommends $11.0 million for grants to 
address violence on college campuses. Grantees use these funds to 
expand defense classes; to make capital improvements, such as 
installing emergency phones and improving lighting on campuses; and to 
train campus administrators and students on how to deal with violence 
and its after effects.
  On a related topic, the conference agreement directs the Center for 
Sex Offender Management to develop a system through which local law 
enforcement can notify communities when a

[[Page 25132]]

sex offender has been released and is living nearby.
  Law enforcement is Justice's primary mission, and there are several 
key components. The U.S. Marshals are responsible for protecting our 
Federal judges and courthouses, for serving legal papers in Federal 
cases, and for recapturing fugitives. The $604.3 million recommended 
for the Marshals provides funds for new initiatives to apprehend the 
most dangerous fugitives; outfit and man new courthouses; and reduce 
the backlog of security upgrades at old courthouses.
  The recommendation provides $4.6 billion for the Immigration & 
Naturalization Service, INS; $1.5 billion of this is derived from fees. 
The amount provided improves our posture on the border, expands efforts 
to apprehend illegal aliens in the interior, increases resources for 
naturalization backlog reduction, and begins to tackle the nationwide 
backlog on INS construction, maintenance, and repair.
  An appropriation of $3.2 billion is dedicated to the FBI. This 
includes $67.5 million for the National Instant Criminal Background 
Check System, NICS, used by gun dealers to prevent the sale of weapons 
to individuals who are prohibited from owning a gun. We have reiterated 
the Senate recommendation that no fees be charged to conduct these 
checks.
  The FBI Crime Lab is famous for its forensic capabilities, and many 
States rely on its scientific expertise. The bill provides $137.3 
million for forensic services within the Bureau.
  DNA testing is just one example of an important emerging forensic 
science. The FBI reported a 15 percent increase in the number of cases 
aided this year by having DNA profiles available in a national 
database. Our recommendation includes $1.4 million for the National 
Offender Database, which stores the DNA profiles of convicted 
criminals.
  The Internet has created numerous social and economic benefits in the 
United States and around the world. Unfortunately, it is also an 
efficient medium by which crimes can be committed.
  The conference agreement includes an increase to $3.9 million for the 
FBI's Computer Analysis and Response Teams and $30.5 million for its 
digital storm program. In addition, we continue funding levels for the 
Field Computer Crime Intrusion Squads, which are highly trained 
computer experts available on demand to field offices. Finally, $5.5 
million is recommended for the Special Technologies Applications Unit 
of the National Infrastructure Protection Center, a clearinghouse for 
Federal cases dealing with cyber crime.
  We aggressively fund State and local law enforcement assistance, 
providing $2.8 billion.
  COPS is funded at $1.03 billion. A large portion of this amount is 
for hiring initiatives. This high level of funding also allows law 
enforcement agencies to upgrade technology. For programs funded under 
the Crime Identification Technology Act, $130.0 million is available. 
There is an additional $140.0 million for non-CITA technology needs.
  In order to get this bill passed without a veto, we have also 
provided $25.0 million for community prosecutors and $75.0 million for 
gun prosecutions. The agreement limited these funds to prosecutions of 
individuals who committed crimes with firearms.
  Separate from COPS funding we provide funding for the programs that 
Congress traditionally supports. There is $523.0 million available for 
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, $569.0 million for the Edward 
Byrne Grants, and $686.5 million for State Prison Grants.
  The last item I want to talk about in the Justice section of this 
bill is my proposal on how to prevent misuse of Social Security 
numbers.
  We have incorporated language that will protect people from the 
improper use of Social Security numbers. We must protect individuals 
when access to an individual's most personal information is wrongly 
obtained.
  A recent example of the gross misuse of a Social Security number 
happened in Nashua, New Hampshire, just one year ago. Amy Boyer was 
murdered by a stalker who was able to purchase her Social Security 
number on the Internet. The social security number gave him access to 
information so that he was able to track her down and kill her.
  We have named the incorporated provision after Amy because its goal 
is to ensure that no more stalkers can easily use Social Security 
numbers for their nefarious acts. Amy Boyer's Law prohibits the display 
or sale to the public of any person's Social Security number without 
that individual's consent. It imposes civil and criminal penalties on 
those who violate this law.
  This legislation, while banning improper or fraudulent uses of social 
security numbers, does preserve the legitimate uses of Social Security 
numbers by such groups as the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children, the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America, and the Association 
for Children for the Enforcement of Support, ACES, as well as banks, 
insurance companies, and others who use these numbers to prevent fraud. 
I am confident that this legislation is crafted in such a way as to 
balance the many concerns surrounding the use of Social Security 
numbers. I believe that passing Amy Boyer's Law is one of the most 
important things that Congress can accomplish this year.
  The next title in the bill is the Department of Commerce and its 
related agencies. Title II is funded at a level of $4.7 billion.
  One of the primary functions of Commerce is to generate a 
comprehensive international trade policy for our country. Many agencies 
play a part in this effort. For the agency that has the lead on 
negotiating trade agreements, we provide $29.5 million for the United 
States Trade Representative, USTR.
  To one of its supporting agencies, the International Trade 
Commission, we provide $48.1 million. Their statutory mandate also 
includes enforcing dumping and counterveiling duty actions in 
accordance with the World Trade Organization and General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade.
  The International Trade Administration is responsible for promoting 
exports and provides information on Federal Government export 
assistance to individuals and businesses. We provide $337.4 million. 
This level includes additional funding to increase trade enforcement 
and compliance activities, in concert with USTR. Of particular 
importance are the funds included in this bill for compliance 
activities with respect to China, Japan, and the European Union. The 
bill also continues funding for the core programs within the agency.
  The bill includes $64.9 million for the Bureau of Export 
Administration which is an increase of roughly $10.8 million over the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The Committee increases funding for 
export cooperation for the implementation of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention.
  Also, increased funds are provided to assist in export enforcement in 
the area of counterterrorism and computer export verification to ensure 
that high technology exports are being used for peaceful purposes and 
not for proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  We are providing significantly less money this year for the census 
because most of the activities supporting the decennial census have 
been concluded. The Committee provides $433.6 million to conclude 
Census 2000 and maintain normal operations for fiscal year 2001.
  The conference agreement provides funding to permit the initiation of 
an effort to include a measurement of electronic business in the fiscal 
year 2002 economic census. The Committee's funding level should also 
permit the Bureau to continue issuing key reports on manufacturing, 
general economic, and foreign trade statistics which are so important 
to the U.S. business community.
  Moving on to the scientific side of the Commerce Department, this 
bill includes $100.4 million for the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration. From within this funding, $43.5 million is 
for the public telecommunications grant program and $45.5 million is 
for information infrastructure grants.

[[Page 25133]]

  The President believes solving the digital divide is a government 
obligation. He requested $50.0 million to provide new Home Internet 
Access grants. Neither the House nor Senate bills included funding for 
this program. However, the President made this a priority and raised it 
in discussions with us, so we have directed $30.0 million into the 
Information Infrastructure Grants as a compromise position.
  However, I note that in an earlier age, public libraries were created 
to give those without the resources to maintain a personal book 
collection access to information. The Schools and Libraries program was 
created in 1996 to provide access to the Internet for every American 
visiting a library and to school children.
  Just as Enoch Pratt and Andrew Carnegie endowed public libraries 
throughout the country, the high tech industry has the ability and the 
wealth to create an endowment for addressing the so-called digital 
divide. Every person in America who has a phone contributes to the 
Universal Service fund, which provides funds for the Schools and 
Libraries program. I do not believe that asking Americans to contribute 
additional funds to bring Internet access to homes is the way to solve 
the so-called digital divide.
  One of the agencies whose goals is to stimulate economic competition 
and innovation is the National Institute for Standards and Technology, 
NIST. This agency provides industry with assistance to leverage their 
efforts in technological advances and infrastructure enhancements that 
benefit all of us by keeping U.S. companies on the cutting edge.
  NIST's funding level is $598.3 million for fiscal year 2001. Of this 
amount, $312.6 million is for scientific and technical research and 
services programs; $155.0 million and carryover funding are available 
for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and $105.1 million for the 
Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP).
  Also, $10 million is provided to develop new measurements, test 
methods, and guidelines to better protect the information technology 
elements of the Nation's critical infrastructure, of which our cyber 
infrastructure is a key component. NIST's research results are made 
publicly available so that all may benefit from its findings and 
suggestions.
  Another agency within the Department with scientific expertise is the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The bill before you 
includes $2.6 billion for NOAA, and the five major line offices within 
NOAA are funded as follows: the National Ocean Service at a level of 
$290.0 million; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at $517.0 
million; the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at $323.0 
million; the National Weather Service at $630.0 million; and, the 
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service at a 
level of $125.0 million.
  Within the National Ocean Service, $28.25 million for the National 
Estuarine Research Reserve program. We continue the efforts to reduce 
the backlog of NOAA mapping and charting as well as to map shorelines. 
The bill supports the Coastal Zone Management grants at a level of 
$52.0 million and the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab at the 
Senate level of $7.0 million.
  Under the National Marine Fisheries Service, we assist the collecting 
of scientific data on healthy fisheries as well as those that are 
threatened. Protection for threatened and endangered species continues. 
For NMFS Information, Collection, and Analysis programs, the bill 
provides $120 million.
  The funding levels included in the bill for the Office of Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Research support several important programs of interest to 
the Senate. The Sea Grant College program continues at a level of 
$62.25 million and $15.8 million for the National Undersea Research 
Program.
  Climate and Air Quality research is funded at $68.5 million. A new 
climate initiative was requested for fiscal year 2001, and while the 
conference could not support the total request of $24.0 million, there 
is a recommendation of $9.25 million for initiating the ocean 
observations component of the proposal.
  The National Weather Service touches all of our lives, and provides 
the warnings to protect life and property. The Committee funds Weather 
Service Operations and Research and systems acquisitions at $630.8 
million.
  NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service 
operates the satellites which provide data used by the Weather Service 
to track hurricanes and to provide guidance for forecasts and warnings. 
Funding of $125.0 million is provided for this office within NOAA in 
fiscal year 2001. In addition, funding is provided elsewhere in the 
bill for the acquisition of both geostationary and polar-orbiting 
satellites.
  The next title in our bill covers the Judiciary. For the third branch 
of government we provide an increase to $4.25 billion. We provide 
conditional funding for the cost of living adjustment for the justices 
and judges. However, the Senate Committee language ending the ban on 
honoraria for judges was not incorporated into this final agreement.
  Now, for the last department in this bill, we provide $6.6 billion to 
the State Department. This is an increase over the fiscal year 2000 
level for the department.
  After the Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi bombings, we poured funding into 
State Department security, but we emphasized the need for a cohesive 
plan that had the capability of being effective. The past performance 
of the Department and resulting plans have not allayed the misgivings 
we have about their handling of the billions of dollars we appropriate 
to them.
  We are disturbed by the security breaches. The State Department was 
not just lax with security overseas, but that it has been less than 
stellar at its headquarters here in Washington. From losing 16 laptop 
computers and letting press agents roam unattended through its 
corridors, the State Department's security plans remain of grave 
concern. We are providing the funding but are not seeing improvements.
  This bill gives the State Department substantial resources to address 
its requirements. The funding levels include $410 million for worldwide 
security under Diplomatic and Consular Programs. We also provide $663.0 
million in security-related construction under the Embassy Security, 
Construction, and Maintenance account.
  The agreement includes a sizeable increase over last year's levels 
for Cultural and Educational Exchange Programs, providing $231.6 
million--an amount above the President's original request and the 
Senate and House levels. The funding is used to bring individuals 
together, professionally and culturally, to share experiences to foster 
peace and understanding among multiple countries and the United States. 
My colleagues may be familiar with the Fulbright, International 
Visitors, and English Teaching Fellows programs that are included in 
this account.
  Lastly in State, we provide $299 million to cover our country's 
regular dues to the United Nations and $846 million for U.N. 
peacekeeping.
  We remain concerned that the United Nations continues to levy 
peacekeeping payments against us based on a percentage system setup 
during the 1970s connected to estimates on what member countries could 
afford to pay for such ventures at that time. The United States 
contests millions of dollars in payments to the United Nations because 
their billing procedure is outdated and does not reflect the fiscal 
capacities of the current member states.
  For decades, the United States has been levied to pay roughly one-
third of peacekeeping efforts even though it is an obligation of all 
188 United Nations members. We will continue to encourage other members 
who have rebuilt and financially recovered from the ravages of the 
Twentieth Century's wars. They must step up and take over a more 
proportionate share of the financial burden of current peacekeeping 
endeavors.
  This bill contains a handful of related agencies that act 
independently of the departments within this bill, and

[[Page 25134]]

comprise $2.2 billion of the total of this bill.
  The first of these agencies is the Maritime Administration which is 
responsible for administering several programs for the maritime 
industry relating to U.S. foreign and domestic commerce and our 
national defense. The bill includes a total of $219.6 million for its 
efforts. Within this level, the Maritime Security Program receives 
$98.7 million. The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program (Title XI) is 
funded at $34.0 million. In addition, $10.0 million in carryover 
balances from prior fiscal years are available for this purpose.
  The final bill before you includes an increase over last year's 
funding level for the Federal Communications Commission to $230.0 
million.
  The Small Business Administration (SBA) is one of the larger 
independent agencies in this bill. We provide $837.0 million for the 
SBA. Within this amount, $88 million is appropriated for the Small 
Business Development Centers; $15.0 million for PRIME; $3.8 million for 
SCORE; and, $4.0 million for the Veteran's Outreach program.
  For SBA's business loan program account, the bill provides a total of 
$294 million in fiscal year 2001. This funding level provides a program 
level of $10.4 billion for 7(a) loans.
  For the SBA disaster loan program, a total of $186.5 million is 
included to cover loans and the administration of the program.
  The last two agencies I want to mention are the Federal Trade 
Commission, FTC, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. We 
have given both these agencies increases this year, funding the FTC at 
a level of $147.2 million and the SEC at a level of $422.8 million. The 
Internet has caused a fundamental change to both these agencies as they 
try to put in place mechanisms to prevent fraud in the electronic 
market place.
  The FTC has brought 100 cases against 300 companies and individuals 
for Internet fraud. As Internet access expands and more Internet 
businesses come on-line, the need for these agencies to have a strong 
presence in the market increases. There is a need to protect consumers, 
and particularly elderly consumers who are prone to attacks, from ever 
varying fraudulent schemes. In 1999, consumers were estimated to have 
spent $20.2 billion on line, and the expectation is that this number 
will grow almost exponentially over the next 4 years.
  We are providing additional funding for investigators and prosecutors 
within both the SEC and FTC to grow with the impending surge of 
activity. We provide funding to expand Consumer Sentinel so that 
international law enforcement officers will have access to it.
  The strong presence we promote throughout this bill in the cyber-
world is not one derived from statutory and regulatory restrictions, 
but achieved instead through the presence of enforcers of existing laws 
that will aggressively seek out those who abuse the Internet. I have 
made a point of mentioning throughout this summation the key Internet 
initiatives within the agencies and departments because it is such a 
critical issue for all of us.
  Its importance will continue to grow. We have bolstered Federal 
agencies' efforts to stay on top of Internet advancements and maintain 
functionality in the technological world.
  This bill effectively uses our resources to provide adequate funding 
for the agencies under our jurisdiction. It addresses the most pressing 
needs that were brought to our attention by the Administration and by 
my colleagues. Chairman Rogers, the Ranking Members, and I have worked 
together with the members of the Committee to craft a bipartisan bill 
to recommend to both our houses. I do want to thank my colleague from 
South Carolina for his efforts in creating this bill. He remains a 
leader on many of the issues we address. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
this funding agreement.
  Madam President, I would also like to acknowledge today the 
dedication of one of the staffers who drafted portions of this effort 
who has retired from Federal service.
  Paddy Link served on the Committee for 4 years dealing with the 
Federal Communications Commission, FCC, the Commerce Department, the 
Small Business Administration, and many other agencies. She was an 
expert in FCC and NOAA. Her astute evaluation and handling of technical 
concepts made her a valued part of the Committee. She has in-depth 
knowledge of the people and issues in the areas she worked on which 
gave her much appreciated insight on the issues the Committee had to 
tackle.
  She provided decades of Federal service, starting as staff in the 
House of Representatives, moving to the Department of Commerce as a 
congressional liaison officer and then to be the director of the office 
of legislative affairs for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration. Most recently before her time with Appropriations, 
Paddy was the staff director of the Senate Commerce Committee under 
former Chairman Larry Pressler and had a critical role in writing and 
passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  We miss her political acumen as well as her sense of humor. We wish 
her the best of luck in the future.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Broadwave affiliates of Northpoint 
Technology proposes to share the spectrum currently being used by the 
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz 
frequency bands. Through the use of its technology in the 12.2-12.7 GHz 
band, Northpoint has the potential to provide much needed competition 
to cable by offering low cost multichannel video services and high-
speed Internet access.
  A provision, however, addressing sharing issues in the 12.2-12.7 GHz 
band has been added to the ``Launching Our Communities' Access to Local 
Television Act of 2000'' (also referred to as the Rural Loan Guarantee 
bill). Section 12 of this Act imposes three general requirements. 
First, it requires that a terrestrial wireless applicant proposing to 
use the 12.2-12.7 GHz band have its technology subjected to an 
independent demonstration or have its technical showings subjected to 
an independent analysis to determine whether the technology will cause 
harmful interference to DBS operators. Second, the Federal 
Communications Commission is required to select an independent 
engineering firm recommended by the IEEE or other similar body to 
analyze the technologies proposed in the pending wireless terrestrial 
applications. Third, the demonstration or analysis must be concluded 
within 60 days of enactment of the Rural Loan Guarantee bill and the 
comment cycle cannot exceed an additional 30 days. Lastly, I want to 
note that enactment of this provision by Congress does not release the 
FCC from its obligations under section 2002 of SHIVA.
  In my home state of South Carolina, there are Broadwave affiliates 
awaiting regulatory approval so that they can begin to provide service. 
Therefore, I expect that the testing required under the Rural Loan 
Guarantee legislation will constitute the final interference analysis 
needed to evaluate sharing requirements between terrestrial applicants 
with pending applications and existing DBS service providers. Moving 
this proceeding forward is important, because if Northpoint is able to 
obtain the necessary regulatory authorizations, it will not only be 
able to provide competition to cable, but through its affiliate 
structure, it also will afford small businesses an opportunity to 
participate in a vibrant segment of the communications marketplace.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in 1992, Congress enacted legislation 
regulating the cable industry because of the lack of competition and 
the resulting high rates. In 1996, Congress anticipating that 
competition would replace regulation in restraining prices, passed 
legislation terminating the FCC's right to regulate the price of basic 
cable in March 1999. Unfortunately, competition has not emerged as 
fully as I would have liked. According to the FCC's latest report only 
157 communities out of 33,000 communities across America have 
``effective competition.'' In fact, in many communities in Hawaii, 
consumers have no cable service at all.

[[Page 25135]]

  Northpoint Technology and its Broadwave affiliates want to provide 
low cost multi-channel video and data services in every television 
market in the United States. Therefore, it is critical that Congress 
and the FCC take the actions necessary to resolve sharing and other 
technical and policy issues quickly with respect to the applications of 
the Broadwave affiliates. Furthermore, these applications are subject 
to a Congressional mandate (Section 2002 of S. 1948, the Satellite Home 
Viewer Improvement Act) that requires the FCC by November 29, 2000 to 
grant or deny applications such as those of the Broadwave affiliates, 
that can provide television service in rural areas. The technical 
sharing analysis required by the ``Launching Our Communities' Access to 
Local Television Act of 2000'' does not obviate the legislative 
obligation imposed by S. 1948. Therefore, the FCC should do whatever is 
necessary to meet its November 29, 2000 obligations.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the controversy 
surrounding Section 12 of this bill, Section 1012 of Commerce, Justice, 
State and the Judiciary Appropriations conference report, has been 
resolved. Although I believe the new provision is unnecessary, I hope 
that requiring a technical demonstration to resolve harmful 
interference questions in the 12.2 GHz band will put this issue to 
rest. However, let me be clear that I support Section 12 with the 
understanding that it does not supercede or otherwise impact relevant 
provisions in the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act (Public Law 
106-113, 113 Stat 1501)) which require the FCC to complete by November 
29, 2000, the processing of applications and other authorizations for 
local facilities that can provide local television and broadband 
services to rural and underserved areas.
  Northpoint Technology and its 69 Broadwave affiliates applied on 
January 8, 1999, to provide lower cost multi-channel video and data 
services in every television market in the United States. Northpoint's 
technology is particularly innovative and accomplishes something that 
is unique in telecommunications history. Using Northpoint's patented 
system, the Broadwave affiliates will be able to re-use the 12.2-12.7 
band without the need to relocate existing users DirecTV and Echostar.
  Northpoint Technology through its Broadwave affiliates will offer 
consumers in Boston and several other markets the benefits of true 
competition in the marketplace for multichannel video programming and 
data services. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress 
established March 1999 as the sunset on the FCC's authority to regulate 
the price of basic cable service. Congress took this action with the 
anticipation that competition would replace regulation in restraining 
prices and improving quality in the video programming marketplace. The 
rapid introduction of Broadwave service to communities across America 
will go a long way toward achieving the goals of the 1996 Act and 
ensuring that consumers enjoy the fruits of competition including 
greater choice, lower prices and quality service.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Hart-Scott-
Rodino Act reform included in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations 
Bill. Our provision updates the law, which hadn't been adjusted for 
inflation since it was enacted in 1976, and makes several improvements 
to the merger review process undertaken by the Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. It is a 
bipartisan measure, authored by Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine and 
myself and Representatives Hyde and Conyers, and it deserves our 
support.
  The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act is crucial to the enforcement of 
competition policy in today's economy--it ensures that the antitrust 
agencies have sufficient time to review mergers and acquisitions prior 
to their completion. The statute requires that, prior to consummating a 
merger or acquisition of a certain minimum size, the companies involved 
must formally notify the antitrust agencies and must provide certain 
information regarding the proposed transaction. For those transactions 
covered by the Act, the parties to a merger or acquisition may not 
close their transaction until the expiration of a waiting period after 
making their Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filing. It also authorizes the 
government to subpoena additional information from merging parties so 
that the government has sufficient information to complete its merger 
analysis.
  While this statute has a very laudable purpose, especially with the 
tremendous numbers of mergers and acquisitions taking place in recent 
years, some of its provisions are in need of revision. Most 
importantly, while inflation has caused the value of a dollar to drop 
by more than a half in the past 25 years, the monetary test that 
subjects a transaction to the provisions of the statute has not been 
revised since the law's enactment in 1976. As a result, many 
transactions that are of a relatively small size and pose little 
antitrust concerns are nevertheless swept into the ambit of the Hart-
Scott-Rodino review process. This legislation updates this statute to 
better fit into today's economy by raising the minimum size of 
transaction covered by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act from $15 million to 
$50 million. This will both lessen the agencies' burden of reviewing 
small transactions unlikely to seriously affect competition and enable 
the agencies to allocate their resources to properly focus on those 
transactions most worthy of scrutiny.
  Further, exempting smaller transactions from the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
process will significantly lessen regulatory burdens and expenses 
imposed on small businesses. The parties to these smaller transactions 
will no longer need to pay the $45,000 filing fee--or face the often 
even more onerous legal fees and other expenses typically incurred in 
preparing a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing--for mergers and acquisitions that 
usually don't pose any competitive concerns.
  In exempting this class of transactions from Hart-Scott-Rodino 
review, however, it is important that we not cause the antitrust 
agencies to lose the funding they need to carry out their increasingly 
demanding mission of enforcing the nation's antitrust laws. This bill 
will reduce the number of Hart-Scott-Rodino filings and therefore 
reduce the revenues generated by these filings if the filing fees were 
kept at their present level. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't 
finance the Antitrust Division and the FTC on the backs of these filing 
fees. But because they are a fact of life, the antitrust agencies 
should not be penalized by these reforms by suffering such a reduction 
in revenues. As a result, in order to assure that this reform is 
revenue neutral, we have worked with the Appropriations Committee to 
ensure that this bill raises the filing fees for the largest 
transactions. Consequently, filing fees are to be increased for 
transactions valued at over $100,000,000, which makes sense because 
these transactions require more scrutiny.
  This legislation makes other changes designed to enhance the 
efficiency of the pre-merger review process. The waiting period has 
been extended from twenty to thirty days after the parties' compliance 
with the government's request for additional information, a more 
realistic waiting period in this era of increasingly complex mergers 
generating enormous amounts of relevant information and documents. And, 
as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a deadline for 
governmental action occurs on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is 
extended to the next business day. This simple provision will eliminate 
gamesmanship by parties who currently may time their compliance so that 
the waiting period ends on a weekend or holiday, effectively shortening 
the waiting period to the previous business day.
  Finally, in recent years many have expressed concerns regarding the 
difficulties and expense imposed on business in complying with 
allegedly overly burdensome or duplicative government requests for 
additional information. So our legislation also contains carefully 
crafted provisions to ensure that business is not faced with unduly

[[Page 25136]]

burdensome or overbroad requests for information, while assuring that 
the antitrust agencies' ability to obtain the information necessary to 
carry out a merger investigation is not hampered. Specifically, our 
legislation mandates that the FTC and Antitrust Division designate a 
senior official who does not have direct authority for the review of 
any enforcement recommendation to be designated to hear appeals to the 
appropriateness of the government's information requests the so called 
``Second Requests''. The bill also sets forth the specific standards 
that this senior official is to utilize when considering such an appeal 
and mandates that these appeals be heard in an expedited manner.
  In sum, I believe this legislation to be a reasonable and well 
balanced reform of our government's vital merger review procedures. It 
will make long overdue adjustments in the filing thresholds--ensuring 
review of those mergers in most need of governmental scrutiny while 
reducing the burden and expense on government and private parties by 
exempting smaller transactions from often expensive and time consuming 
pre-merger filings. It will also significantly reform the merger review 
process to ensure that the government has sufficient time to analyze 
increasing complex merger transactions, while also adding protections 
so that private parties do not face unduly burdensome or duplicative 
information requests. I urge swift passage of this measure.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, today we are considering the 
Conference report for the District of Columbia. This conference report 
also includes the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations act.
  We crafted a good bill in conference.
  We have fully funded the D.C. tuition program--which allows D.C. high 
school students greater educational choices beyond the border of this 
City.
  We have fully funded the new metro station in the New York Avenue 
corridor, which I know is important to the economic development of the 
City.
  We have $3 million in funding for the Poplar Point environmental 
clean up.
  We have increased funding for the Courts. The salaries of Court 
employees are 19 percent below the level of federal court employees--
thus--it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep a quality 
workforce.
  Our bill also increases the budget for offender services so that we 
continue the program of drug testing and treatment for offenders who 
are on probation or awaiting trial.
  Much as been said in the past about ``riders'' to the District 
budget. This year, we have eliminated over 30 of last year's riders.
  The bill will authorize the District's planned tobacco securitization 
program--the proceeds of which will be used to reduce debt or build 
reserves.
  With respect to the District's reserves, we have restructured the 
reserve funds of the District so they can function more efficiently. 
This is probably the most important reform in this bill.
  The District is supposed to hold a $150 million reserve now--and a 
budget surplus of 4 percent of revenues.
  But we found last year that the District wanted to dip into the 
emergency reserve funds for things that are considered ordinary 
expenses. We also found that the reserves were really hollow--entirely 
dependent on how much cash flow the District had on any given day.
  I didn't think this was good enough for this City. The bond markets 
want and need reassurance that the District's financial turnaround is 
sound.
  We have restructured the District's reserves so that they will have 
both an emergency reserve and a contingency reserve. This is modeled on 
the practices of other cities. And, most importantly, when established, 
these reserves will be in cash and will be held in separate accounts, 
earning interest.
  The contingency reserve, which will be 3 percent of their budget, is 
for unanticipated expenses, like court orders, new federal mandates or 
extremely bad weather. It will be more flexible.
  The emergency reserve, which will be 4 percent of their budget, is 
for extraordinary needs, like natural disasters. It will be the backing 
for the financial soundness we seek.
  In consultation with the CFO and the Mayor, we allow the District a 
seven year glide path to establish these reserves, but both have 
assured me the tobacco securitization program will be used to fund this 
emergency requirement now. There could be no better use than this and 
debt reduction.
  The District has had a dramatic financial recovery. I consider this 
the last leg of the financial plan. This will serve as a true ``rainy 
day'' fund--one that is ready and able to be tapped in those 
circumstances.
  To conclude, although the President has indicated he has reservations 
about the CJS bill--he has indicated that the D.C. portion of the 
conference report is a bill he would sign.
  Madam President, let me now turn to the Commerce, Justice, State 
provisions.
  I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their work on 
this bill. They have worked very hard to put more federal resources on 
our border, though we still have a long way to go.
  These are not resources just for Texas. The drugs that come into the 
United States along the Southwest border will find their way into every 
city in the United States. The Southwest border is ground zero in the 
war against drugs.
  Making our border more secure--makes every American city more secure 
from the scourge of drugs.
  The Conference report provides for the hiring of over 400 new border 
agents. I would have preferred a higher number--but the Administration 
has dragged its feet on higher agents in the past--so we know this is a 
realistic goal for next year.
  It provides $15 million in equipment upgrades for the border patrol.
  It provides greater funding for DEA, with emphasis on helping drug 
threats at the State and local level.
  The Conference report also addresses the ``upstream'' effect of more 
law enforcement on the border.
  What has happened is this: as we have increased our law enforcement 
presence on the border--a strain has been felt on our judiciary system.
  This bill provides for 13 new U.S. Attorneys along the Southwest 
border--where they are desperately needed. The five U.S. courts along 
the border are the busiest courts in the Nation--handling 26 percent of 
all the criminal cases in the United States. These new positions are 
desperately needed.
  The bill also provides for two new Federal judges one in the Southern 
and one in the Western judicial district in Texas. I sponsored the bill 
to create 13 new judgeships along the border. I would have preferred 
the full number of judgeships, but I am pleased the Committee has 
accommodated the need for new judges in my State.
  The bill does not provide badly needed salary increases for border 
patrol agents, which the Senate has passed and fought to produce. I 
will continue to press to bring our Border Patrol in line with all 
other border government salary schedules.
  It is regrettable that the President has threatened to veto this 
bill, particularly over the immigration provision. I believe we have 
struck a balanced approach on this issue in this bill.
  President Clinton's plan would grant broad amnesty to immigrants that 
arrived between 1982 and 1986. Our Border Patrol Officers have said ``a 
new amnesty would encourage innumerable others to break our laws in the 
future.'' I couldn't agree more.
  Our proposal would provide greater due process to those who believe 
they were wrongly denied amnesty. We also shorten the waiting period 
for spouses and children to join their relatives in the United States. 
These relatives will likely be able to immigrate legally soon, but we 
allow them to come to the U.S. while their petitions are awaiting 
action. This is a reasonable proposal the President should accept.
  Madam President, I will yield the floor and urge my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page 25137]]

  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. 
Ashcroft), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Grams), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. 
Roth) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Burns), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Allard
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Ashcroft
     Burns
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Grams
     Helms
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Roth
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________