Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, after consultation with the two leaders, I would like to ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 3 o'clock I be recognized to make a motion to table the Domenici amendment No. 2819, and that the time between now and 3 o'clock be equally divided between Senator Domenici and myself to complete debate on his amendment.

Mr. GRAMM. Well, if I might respond, Mr. President. I have been informed by the floor staff that we have other people who have been waiting to offer amendments. We have two others who were planning to be here after 3 to offer their amendments. So I could not agree to a unanimous-consent request to put the Specter amendments before them, though, obviously, after 3, if the Domenici amendment is tabled, then the floor will be open for another amendment. If it is not tabled, it is going to be the pending business and another amendment will not be in order. So, I am not in a position at the moment to add that to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there are an awful lot of points to make in opposition to this amendment. Let me begin by saying it is very interesting that those who came here today to defend the Legal Services Corporation refuse to defend it. The best they can do in the way of defense is to give us a list of outrageous abuses that they propose that we try to stop. That is a very weak defense indeed. But I do not want to begin by talking about legal services, and going through the list of numerous organizations who support the committee's position and strongly oppose the Domenici position to bring back a Federal Legal Services Corporation. There are really several issues in debate here, and the one I want to begin with is about the choices that are made to allow Senator Domenici to fund the Legal Services Corporation at $340 million. Our dear colleague from South Carolina glosses over those decisions by simply saying that we are providing a lot of money to fight violent crime and drugs, and so taking some of that money away from that battle in order to fund legal services is probably a good thing. This is one of those occasions where I wish we could sit around the kitchen table of every working family in America and discuss this issue. If we could, this amendment, and probably those who advocate it, would be thrown out of the kitchen. But let me go through the programs that are cut by the Domenici amendment, and their ramifications. Because our colleagues are so desirous of preserving the Legal Services Corporation as a Federal entity, many of them, who have stood on the floor of the Senate and argued for block granting decisionmaking back to the States when it served their purpose, now oppose letting States run a program which is a renegade program, which has abuses that probably equal or exceed that of any other similar Government program funded in the modern era by our Government. But let me start by going through what is being cut, what is being denied to the American people to provide $340 million to legal services. And then I will try to talk about why legal services does not deserve the $340 million. First of all, the Domenici amendment cuts the general legal activities of the Justice Department by $25,131,000. In listening to Senator Hollings, you get the idea we are just throwing so much money at the Justice Department they do not know what to do with it, they have all the prosecutors they need to prosecute every drug dealer and every violent criminal in America. The only problem with that argument is the American people know that does not reflect reality. In fact, our bill, which Senator Domenici cuts from, already provides $10 million below the level requested by President Clinton in his proposed appropriation for the Justice Department. So, before we would cut the $25 million from the legal activities section of the Justice Department, as Senator Domenici proposes, we already, because of lack of funds, had cut it by $10 million. Where is this money coming from? Since the average person in America does not understand what the general legal activities of the Justice Department does, here is what it does. It prosecutes organized criminals, it prosecutes major drug traffickers, it prosecutes child pornographers, it prosecutes major fraud against the taxpayer, it prosecutes terrorism and espionage cases. These cuts will mean that we will have 200 fewer prosecutors in America next year, if this amendment passes, who will be prosecuting organized crime, major drug traffickers, child pornographers, major fraud against the taxpayer, and terrorism and espionage cases. I remind my colleagues, we are already providing $10 million less than what the President has requested. But the Domenici amendment would further cut the level of funding for those prosecutors to prosecute organized crime, major drug traffickers, child pornographers, and fraud against the taxpayer, terrorism and espionage by another $25 million. Legislating is about choosing. And what the Domenici amendment says is a federally run Legal Services Corporation, a program that is so filled with outrageous actions that even in this amendment Senator Domenici seeks to curb their abuses--the Domenici amendment says that funding that Federal program is more important than providing prosecutors to prosecute organized crime and the other crimes that I have outlined. The second cut made by the Domenici amendment, in order to fund legal services, is cutting $11 million from the U.S. attorneys office. I remind my colleagues, and the American people who might be watching this debate, that our U.S. attorneys are our first line of defense. They are the people who try cases in Federal court. They are the people who prosecute major drug dealers. The amendment that is offered by Senator Domenici, to preserve the Federal Legal Services Corporation, will terminate at least 55 assistant U.S. attorneys who otherwise would have been employed in prosecuting violent criminals and drug felons, pornographers, and terrorists. I believe that legislating means making choices. I ask my colleagues, is preserving the Federal Legal Services Corporation rather than letting the States run it through a block grant program worth taking 55 assistant U.S. attorneys out of prosecution in America? My answer is no. We had a discussion about construction for the FBI. As I read the amendment, what is being cut here is not crime labs, though I strongly support them, what is being cut is the very heart of new facilities construction at the FBI Academy. The Domenici amendment, in the name of preserving a federally run Legal Services Corporation, a corporation which as of today has filed a lawsuit against every State in the Union that is trying to implement welfare reform by requiring welfare recipients to work, which is funding drug dealers who are trying to stay in public housing units so that they can more efficiently market drugs, in seeking the preservation of this Federal program, the Domenici amendment would require cutting the FBI Academy and its construction at Quantico by some $49 million. I have a letter from the head of the FBI. Unfortunately, as Senator Hollings noted, it is a classified letter. But it is certainly not classified material that the head of the FBI has said that our facilities are becoming antiquated; that as we have cut the President's request for the FBI in recent years, we have not kept up our infrastructure and that we are not going to be able to maintain our training if we do not build new facilities. I remind my colleagues that by a vote of 91 to 8, we passed the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act, which authorized the expenditure of these moneys. I remind my colleagues that the FBI Academy does not just train FBI agents and Federal law enforcement officials, but in fact, last year, it trained 1,225 State and local law enforcement officials. Obviously, the question that we have to ask is this: Is preserving the Federal Legal Services Corporation rather than [[Page S 14591]] block granting it to the States--as we are block granting aid to families with dependent children, as we are block granting Medicaid--is preserving this program as a Federal program run out of Washington, DC, worth denying the facilities we need in Quantico to train FBI agents and to train 1,225 State and local law enforcement officials? Mr. President, my answer to that question is clearly no. Anyone who has found themselves in the jurisdiction of a Federal court knows that we have a real problem in the Federal court system because it is very difficult to get a case to trial. In terms of getting civil justice, we are now talking about years of waiting to get a case before the court. In terms of criminal justice, in bringing violent criminals to justice, we are talking about a long wait because we do not have enough courts, we do not have enough judges, and we do not have enough prosecutors. The Domenici amendment, in order to preserve a federally run Legal Services Corporation--which is opposed by every organization in America from the Farm Bureau Federation to Citizens Against Government Waste-- would cut $25 million from our Federal courts. That $25 million, for example, could fund 400 probation officers to supervise convicted criminals in America. I ask my colleagues, is it worth denying 400 probation officers supervising criminals in order to fund the Federal Legal Services Corporation? My answer is no. Let me remind my colleagues that the funds that would be cut include funds that provide mandatory drug testing for all convicts who are released to assure that while they are on parole and on the streets, they remain drug free. Is a cut in funding for this program worth making to preserve a federally funded Legal Services Corporation? My answer is no. Mr. President, there are a lot of other programs that have been cut here. Strong cases can be made for them. I want to make one more case. It is not a case that is going to sway anybody because if you are not swayed by these other cuts, then you are not going to be swayed by this. If you have long ago decided that this agency we call Legal Services, which has such a poor record that not even those who would fund it can defend it, then no amount of prosecutors, no amount of training police officers, no amount of drug testing for convicted felons who are walking the streets on probation, no amount of supervision is going to change your position. But I do want to mention one other offset which very few people find moving, but I think it is important; that is, substantial cuts in census are included in this offset. Most people do not understand the census. It is obvious that Alan Greenspan understands the census because Alan Greenspan, in testimony before the Banking Committee, asked that we fully fund data gathering. The apportionment of population in terms of measuring the number of people in America to decide how many Congressman each State has depends on the census. The allocation of funding for programs, from the FBI to the new Medicaid Program to virtually every other program undertaken by the Federal Government, depends on the census. We are getting ready to have the 2,000 census, the millennium census. It is the only millennium census that we are ever guaranteed to take in the United States of America. I hope it will be the first of many. But this is a critically important census. If we take the recommendations of Senator Domenici and we cut funding for this census, we are going to have to make the funding up in future years as we get closer to the year 2000. If we make this cut now, the 2000 census will be more inefficient. It is going to cost more money. And I do not believe that this is an exchange that should be made. Let me talk about the amendment itself, and then turn to the Legal Services Corporation. It is interesting to me that this amendment has a great big budget gimmick in it. And the great big budget gimmick in it is that it has a delayed obligation. For those who do not understand what that means, let me try to explain. One of the things some people often do in Congress when they want to spend money but do not want people to know that they are spending money is to use a delayed obligation, which means they provide money but do not let the money kick in at the beginning of the fiscal year. In this case, the money would kick in a month from the end of the fiscal year, on September 1, so that there is a huge surge of $115 million that would become available on that date, 30 days before next year's budget would have to be written. Now, what is the purpose of this budget gimmick? The purpose of this budget gimmick is not only to commit a huge surge of contracts for legal services a month before the new budget, but it also makes it difficult next year for us not to fund those programs because they will already be underway, and so when the chairman of this subcommittee next year writes a budget, that chairman will be looking at $115 million of programs that will kick in just 30 days before the end of the fiscal year. What is the purpose of this gimmick which we have denounced over and over and over again? I have heard many Members of the Senate stand up and denounce these delayed obligations as basically perverting the budget process itself. What is the purpose of this? The purpose of this is basically to try to get the level of spending in this program up at the end of the year so that next year it will be harder to achieve the savings to which we have already committed in trying to achieve our balanced budget. Let me talk about legal services, and I want to begin by asking unanimous consent that letters from the Citizens Against Government Waste in opposition to any attempt to restore or increase funds to the Legal Services Corporation, the Christian Coalition, the American Farm Bureau, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Coalition for America, the Eagle Forum, that these letters strongly opposing the Domenici amendment and supporting the action of the committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to withhold.

Mr. GRAMM. Let me say to the Senator, it is my understanding that Senator Kennedy and Senator Lautenberg are on their way here to speak on behalf of the bill. Let me call those who have suggested to me that they might be interested, and it may well be at that point that we could reach a determination as to whether I want to make a motion or whether I just simply want to have a vote. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I believe now we are ready for third reading. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third time and was read the third time.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Hallelujah.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I amend the unanimous consent request to drop the words ``or debate.''

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following committee amendments be withdrawn. The amendment beginning on page 143, line 13 through page 145, line 18, and the amendment beginning on page 151, line 16 through page 156, line 6, and that all remaining committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, that there be one amendment to be offered by each manager which will contain amendments cleared on both sides of the aisle, that the bill be advanced to third reading and final passage occur without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am trying to work out an agreement here. I do not know that starting a debate on a new amendment moves us toward that objective. I would like to ask unanimous consent that debate on all amendments to this bill end, and that we proceed to third reading by 8:30.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments to the desk, en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have to respond to some of this, because I think if someone listens to this debate, they get a total misimpression of what we have done in this bill. Let me begin by saying I take a back seat to no one on this planet and nobody in the U.S. Senate in opposing cargo preference. I have fought it from the first day I [[Page S 14665]] came here. I am going to fight it from here or elsewhere until it is ultimately eliminated. Let me review the facts. The facts are as follows: President Clinton, despite all this wonderful advice, proposed $175 million for operating subsidies for the maritime industry. Our subcommittee and our full committee provided not one red cent. We had an amendment about which we talked to Members on both sides of the aisle. Some 14 Republicans were ready to vote for the amendment. It was obvious to a blind man that we were going to lose on the amendment and, at a late hour, instead of holding the Senate here, we agreed to providing $46 million. Here is the point: As far as I am aware, that is the lowest level of subsidies for the maritime industry since the Second World War. We have never had an appropriations bill in the U.S. Senate since 1946 that cut maritime subsidies as much as this bill cut maritime subsidies. I wanted it to be zero. I oppose these subsidies. But, basically, the point I want people to understand is, the President asked for $175 million. While the accounts are not comparable, there was $214 million provided last year. Even with the adoption of this amendment, which I do not support, we are only providing $46 million in new subsidies. So we have cut maritime subsidies more than any appropriations bill since World War II. We have dramatically reduced those subsidies. I share my colleague's righteous indignation. The problem is I have sat here all day and fought amendments. I wanted to fight this amendment, but not only did I have no votes on my side giving me any chance of a majority, but many of our colleagues were elsewhere in committee. I was here on the floor basically making a decision that we were going to lose, and so this amendment was included. To conclude, being repetitive one final time, if somebody wants good news about maritime subsidies, the President proposed $175 million of operating subsidies. This final bill provides $46 million, which is a dramatic cut and which, as far as I am aware, is the largest cut in operating subsidies for the maritime industry since the Second World War. In terms of loan guarantees, the President asked for $52 million, our committee provided $2 million. This amendment that has been adopted adds $25 million to that, providing $27 million. So in an overall request of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars by President Clinton and his administration, after all is said and done, we are providing $73 million. If we do this well next year, there will be no maritime subsidy program. That is my point. Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM. Yes, it does.

Mr. GRAMM. I understand the concerns of my colleague. The needs of the interior states are great, and it is my belief that these needs will be alleviated by the strong Border Patrol initiative in this bill. However, I would like to be able to assist my colleague from Kansas and Senator Grassley in ensuring a strong INS presence in their states, as well as others in the central corridor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Friday, September 29, 1995, at 10 a.m. in open session, to consider the nomination of Mr. John W. Douglass for appointment as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition.