Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes and at the end of the statement the floor return to the Senator from California.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator entertain a unanimous consent request that I be allowed to speak without taking the floor from the Senator, so the Senator can regain the floor after I finish speaking? I will not offer any amendments.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California because I wish to address this issue, also. I, unfortunately, have a meeting that starts at 1 o'clock. Mr. President, I think we are all actually concerned about the issue of human cloning, and certainly the representations by the doctor from Chicago who stated he intends to pursue a course of commercializing human cloning has caused us to need to accelerate addressing this as a public policy matter. It is appropriately an issue that should be addressed at the level of the Congress of the United States. It should be spoken to by the people's representatives and not left to a regulatory environment such as the FDA for a determination, because it is a matter of dramatic import to our culture and to our scientific community. There is no question but that the concept of cloning a human is unethical, inappropriate and wrong. We don't have to delve very far into the history of this century to see the horror that can result from a society which allows itself to pursue a course of creating humans or designing a human race not based on God's will but based on the determination of a political decision or a scientific community. Obviously, the Nazi government, in its seeking of a master race, represents one of the true horrors of the history of mankind. So, the need to debate the issue of whether or not humans should be cloned I think is not necessary. There should be and I believe there is almost unanimity on the need not to allow human cloning to go forward in our society or any other civilized society. I think it is interesting to note that the European Community has also banned human cloning. The question becomes how should we proceed and whether we should proceed with a bill that has been designed by Senator Bond, Senator Frist and to some part myself, or whether we should proceed in some other manner. I for one strongly support the initiative that is put forward by the bill which we are presently considering because it addresses the core issue of human cloning, which is the creation of an embryo through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is really the question here. In order to clone a human, you produce an embryo and as a result you get a human if you follow the next scientific steps. What we have done is limited dramatically and really focused the question specifically on the necessary scientific acts to produce a cloned human and then said, ``No, you cannot proceed in that direction.'' That is the way it should be addressed. This bill was structured in order to respond to the very legitimate concerns of the scientific community for further research in all the areas the Senator from California has outlined. This bill does not, in my opinion, in any way limit the research into those areas because this bill is purely directed at the embryo issue and the creation of a cloned human being as a result of taking that step. The scientific issues are further protected by the commission which is in this bill, which says essentially that we have in place, or will have in place, a bioethical commission which will be able to evaluate science as it evolves and make a determination as to when science needs to have more leverage or needs to have more flexibility and then can come to the Congress and say what changes should occur in order to allow for that flexibility. So there is in place a commission which is not only scientifically based but is theologically based and which is politically based, in the sense that it represents, not politicians, but the community at large and which will have the capacity to review what is happening in the area of cloning technology so that we can stay ahead of the curve and be sure we are not limiting the scientific experience and expansion in this very critical area. So this bill allows for cloning in the area of agriculture and it allows for cloning in the area of animal husbandry. It also allows for cloning for the production of organs. It allows for cloning in stem cell research technology. It allows for cloning in a whole variety of places. Where it does not allow cloning is in the production of a human being, and that is what we should be saying. As a matter of ethics, as a matter of policy, as a matter of a nation which must stand up and define its purposes and ideas, we should be saying humans shall not be cloned. I yield my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I understand we are in morning business and that I have 20 minutes under the order, is that correct?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I ask to modify that by allowing Senator Helms to speak for a period of 3 minutes prior to my speaking.

Mr. GREGG. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this evening we will hear from the President of the United States in his State of the Union Address. We live in a time where the United States is extraordinarily fortunate. We are at peace. We are a Nation that has great prosperity. We are a Nation with a balanced budget for the first time in 25 years. This is all good news. But there looms on the horizon a fiscal policy which, if we do not address in the coming near term, will dramatically undermine our Nation and make it difficult to pass on to our children a country of prosperity. That, of course, is the pending retirement, beginning in the latter part of the next decade, of the postwar baby-boom generation, that huge demographic group of which I and the President are members, which has impacted this country this very decade in some unique way, and which in the next two decades will, as a result of their retiring have an impact of basically bankrupting this country in the Social Security system, which so many seniors rely on, if we do not address these concerns. The opportunity to address these concerns is today. It is much like that oil filter ad, ``You can pay me now or you can pay me later.'' The opportunity to make changes in our Social Security system, which will allow for its solvency, allow it to be a strong and vibrant part of our fabric as a Nation, the opportunity for those changes to be effective and to be done reasonably, is much better today than if we wait for 4, 5 or 10 years. In addition, of course, as we head into a time of surplus, there will be, as a basic policy in this Chamber and in the House, over the next few months a question of how we use that surplus. What is generating the surplus should be the first question. What is generating the surplus is the Social Security trust fund. For the foreseeable future, the extent to which we generate a surplus at the Federal level will be as a result of the fact that more people are paying Social Security taxes than are taking benefits out of the Social Security trust fund. It is not a surplus generated, therefore, as a result of the day-to-day operation of Government being in surplus, of having raised more tax revenues for the day-to-day operation of the Government--defense, education, environmental protection, building roads, for those accounts income surplus; rather, it is a surplus generated by the fact that people who pay payroll taxes are paying more in payroll taxes to support people on retirement under Social Security than they need to. That should be retained as a primary point as we move down the road of addressing the surplus issue. Therefore, I would like to posture that if we are going to be responsible as legislators and as keepers of our Nation's future, we have an obligation to address the issue of Social Security and address it in the short-term, rather than to wait. I also would like to suggest a manner in which we might consider addressing it. One of our goals, as we look at the issue of the surplus, should be to give people tax relief. Another goal, as we look at the issue of the surplus, should be to pay down the Federal debt. A third goal, as we look at the issue of addressing how we are going to deal with the surplus, should be to increase the savings of the American people. A fourth goal should be to assure the solvency of the most critical Federal program that we have, the Social Security system. All four of those goals can be significantly advanced if we intelligently approach the use of the surplus and apply it to benefit the Social Security system. How can we do that? Well, the best way would be to cut the Social Security tax. This is the most regressive tax we have. It is also the taxes generating the surplus. If we were to reduce the Social Security tax so that the average wage earner, instead of paying approximately 7\1/2\ percent, would end up paying 6\1/2\ percent; it would mean that the average wage earner in this country would receive the benefits directly of a tax cut, the purpose of which would be to refund to them the surplus which is being generated by the Federal Government. In such a tax cut, if we were to say to the folks receiving it, the wage earners, the people paying the payroll tax, if we were to say that the tax cut must be saved in an account designated in your name, a personal savings account, such as an IRA account, then we would be accomplishing a second goal, which would be to allow individuals who are seeing retirement coming at them to begin to specifically have an account in the Social Security structure which would be in their name and on which they could participate in the investment decisions, and which would most likely return a much better return than the present Social Security system returns, and which would give them an actual savings vehicle. Thirdly, the practical effect of cutting the tax for people who are wage earners and allowing them to save would be that we would begin the process of refunding the liability in the Social Security system. The Social Security system today has a $3 trillion unfunded liability. So that as the postwar baby-boom generation hits the system in 2008, which is the first year when the system starts to pay more out than it takes in, there becomes a liability that must be paid for through either increased taxes or by reducing the benefit structure of approximately $3 trillion. Well, to the extent that we can encourage people to save by cutting their taxes today and putting those tax cuts into savings accounts, we can significantly reduce the unfunded liability of the Social Security system, which will, in turn, reduce the debt of the Federal Government, which would be another goal in using the surplus that we presently are confronting, or which we are soon to have. So it is great news that we have this surplus. After 25 years, it is extraordinary news. But the proper management of this surplus is clearly one of the core public policy questions that we have to face as a Congress. It is my view that the proper management of this surplus should involve returning to the taxpayers the funds that were paid in, which gave us the surplus, allowing us to give the taxpayers an opportunity to save for their retirement, and to assure the solvency of the Social Security system, and to begin to pay down the Federal debt. These are the goals that I believe we should be looking at. I am hopeful that the President, in his State of the Union Address, will set forth a process and a procedure for allowing us to reach these types of goals. So I look forward to hearing the President's proposals in his State of the Union, and I certainly look forward to the next few months as this Congress wrestles with the issue of how to preserve and protect the Social Security system at the same time that we address the budget surplus. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Yes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Don Tibbetts, ``Dean of the New Hampshire State House Press Corps'' who recently retired after 24 years of news reporting on national and state politics for the Union Leader and the New Hampshire Sunday News. Don has witnessed many historical events over his career, from the thrill of the first in the nation presidential primary to the comings and goings of countless Governors. He has endured seemingly endless hearings and press conferences, yet has reported on each of them with style, substance, and integrity. In a state where people take their politics very seriously, Don was able to give the people of New Hampshire their daily diet of important facts about the events, votes, meetings, and rulings that impact their lives. What is remarkable about Don in this time of editorial journalism is the way Don gave his loyal readers the facts in an unbiased way and let them make their own judgments. In the State House, Don was constantly on the lookout for news, churning out several stories each day. His ``Under the State House Dome'' column was a must read for anyone who wanted to be informed about the latest yet to break news and information about politics in New Hampshire. Although Don is a lifelong member of the Fourth Estate, which often has a skeptical or even adversarial stance toward government officials, he always went the extra mile to listen to both sides of the story and reflect these views in his stories. The only time he did not play it down the middle was when he was on the golf course, where he has been known to hit an occasional errant shot. As someone who Don has covered for many years, I will miss him, and I know that his colleagues at the Union Leader and in the press corps will miss him too. The real questions is if Don will miss any of us. I wish both Don and Jane the best of luck in their future endeavors. Those of us in government will greatly miss his reputation as an honest broker of the facts, a perceptive historian and judge of people, and for helping to keep the job of governing enjoyable.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes at this time to especially thank my staff, headed by Jim Morhard, and so many other members of the staff on both the Democratic and Republican side, who have spent literally hours, including all the hours of last night and many other evenings, but the entire night, getting this bill into a position where it could be passed. It is, as it appears to be, the last appropriations bill to be passed by the Senate and the House and, as such, it has had more than its fair share of issues attached to it. But as a result of the diligent and extraordinary work of the staff, both the Democratic and Republican staff, it is now, I believe, close to successful conclusion, and I anticipate that the House will soon be passing it, and it will be, as we have just agreed to here in the Senate, deemed passed. The bill itself is a very strong piece of legislation. It makes an extraordinarily aggressive commitment to supporting and expanding our efforts in the area of law enforcement, in the area of trying to stop the drugs that are flowing into this country, in protecting our borders and expanding our efforts to make sure that people who are convicted, especially of violent crimes, are incarcerated and kept in prison. It has a very strong commitment also to prevention activities in the area of our justice system. Special emphasis has been put on the violence-against-women initiatives, which are funded at $270.7 million in this bill, an increase of almost 55 percent in this category since I became chairman in 1995. Also, we have put a special emphasis on attempting to address the problems of the Internet relative to child pornography and, unfortunately, the fact that many pedophiles--people who wish to harm our children--are using the Internet for purposes of stalking children. We have continued, supported, and expanded the FBI's initiatives in things like ``Innocent Images'' which is a sting program to try to catch pedophiles and child pornographers. We expanded it so that local and State law enforcement communities will have experience in this area and can take advantage of the protocols set up by the FBI. Further, we recognize that juvenile crime is one of the greatest problems in the country today, and we have attempted to address that through the expansion of the juvenile justice programs, especially the preventive programs. I see Senator Coats here on the floor, who has been a force of immense energy in the area of trying to address juvenile prevention programs, such as Big Sister/Big Brother, and Boys and Girls Clubs, which is funded under this program. We have also created a new block grant, the purpose of which will be to help local communities in the area of juvenile justice. This block grant is aggressively funded with $250 million. There is, in addition, a comprehensive effort--it is a continuing effort--to address terrorism activities and to pursue an aggressive policy of counterterrorism. We all recognize, especially with the events of the last few days that have occurred in Pakistan, that Americans are at risk overseas. They are also, regrettably, at risk in our own country. We have seen two trials just recently completed, one involving the New York Trade Center, the other involving a shooting outside the CIA. Counterterrorism requires that we have a coordinated effort and that we have a strong law enforcement element in that coordinated effort, and this bill pursues both those activities. Senators who represent States along our border, our southern border especially, have found very serious problems in the area of drug enforcement and in the area of illegal immigrants coming across the border, so we are dramatically expanding the number of INS border patrols in this bill, increasing them by 1,000; including $250 million in new initiatives to try to restore the integrity of the naturalization process, which unfortunately has fallen on hard times, to say the least. That may not be the best description of it, in fact, because the system has so collapsed. This bill puts the dollars necessary to give adequate support to the INS, and also it dramatically expands the Border Patrol efforts so that States like, especially, Texas and Arizona, which need additional border patrols, will be able to obtain them. It significantly expands our efforts in the area of NOAA activities. This is one of our premier national treasures in the area of research and technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is an organization which has cutting-edge knowledge in a variety of areas, but especially in the prediction of our weather. We aggressively pursue the expansion of our efforts in weather research and information areas. We give our judges a cost-of-living increase, something they deserve. This bill covers a lot of different jurisdictions, as is known by most of the Senators. One that doesn't get too much attention is the fact that it covers the judicial branch of our Government. We are going to try to help the Supreme Court out and renovate the Supreme Court building, but at the same time we are going to give our judges a reasonable cost-of-living adjustment. In the area of the State Department, we concentrate aggressively in trying to get their physical house in order. It is really a national disgrace, the type of equipment that some of our overseas personnel are asked to use. We still have dial phones in some embassies that we fund around the world. Many of our facilities are simply decrepit and rundown. We have made a major commitment to rehabilitate our facilities and to expand the communication and technology attributes of the State Department. In addition, we are making a major commitment to the personnel of the State Department. I believe they and their families deserve our support, especially in the area of giving them adequate security. We aggressively pursued that. Other agencies, the Small Business Administration, FCC, FTC, all of which are covered by this bill, are also aggressively addressed. We do all this in the context of a bill that, although it spends a considerable amount of money, over $31 billion, spends less than what the President requested and is clearly within the budget, which is a balanced budget, I would note, as a result of the budget passed by this Congress. So, again, I thank the staff for their extraordinary work in this area. I appreciate especially the assistance of the leader in allowing us to get this bill finally resolved. Without his intervention at a number of critical stages, it would not have been pulled together. I very much thank him for his assistance in this effort. I also especially want to thank my ranking member, Senator Hollings, who is really a great fellow to work with. He has a tremendous institutional history of how this committee works, and where the funding comes from, and what has happened in the past. His counsel has always been extraordinarily useful to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the conference report to accompany H.R. 2267, the appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies is received, if it is identical to the document filed earlier today, it be deemed agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without further action or debate.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate that kind comment. The Senator from Illinois has certainly made a serious effort in a number of areas in this Chamber. I have enjoyed working with him, for example, on the tobacco issues. And I look forward to working with him on this. I also believe this must be resolved in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue which has far- reaching concerns for our Nation. Many of our colleagues have heard of the improving economy and have participated in the improving economy and recognize as a result of this improving economy it is likely that the Federal Government will incur a budget surplus in the very near future. This comes about because of a lot of hard work by this Congress, especially this Republican Congress, in controlling the rate of growth of the Federal Government. It is something that is unusual, obviously, not having occurred in the last 25 years. Not only will we have a budget surplus, but it is projected by OMB that the budget surplus will continue well into the first decade of the next century. So, I think that we need to discuss how we address this issue. This is an unfamiliar situation, as I mentioned, for Washington. We certainly do not have much experience in dealing with surpluses so there is naturally some perplexity as to how best to address it. To my mind the answer is pretty clear: The surplus should result in relief to the American taxpayers. Needless to say this is the right answer on economic grounds. If the Government takes in more revenue than it needs to finance its operation, the answer is not for the Government to spend that; rather, it only makes economic sense to return the extra revenues to the private economy that bears the burden of supporting the Government. Not only that, but in this particular case, the appropriateness of tax relief could not be more clear. Let none of us forget what has enabled Congress to accomplish this goal of balancing the budget. It has in large part been the dramatic growth of the economy. If the private sector in this country had not come through with a surge of productivity, then the budget negotiators might not have been able to reach the agreements necessary to accomplish a surplus to reach a balanced budget. It would, therefore, be ungracious of us, at the least, not to return that surplus to the taxpayers who have earned it. I rise, Mr. President, today to voice a specific hope--that this Congress will consider, when that time comes, when we have reached a surplus, including a cut in the payroll tax as the appropriate way to address the returning of this surplus to the American taxpayer. There are several reasons for this--all of them, I believe, noble. First of all, the payroll tax is the most regressive component of our tax burden. There are no deductions, no personal exemptions in figuring of the payroll tax. It's assessed directly on the first dollar of workers' wages, and from there it goes upward until it reaches the wage cap. Moreover, the payroll tax has been the fastest growing component of the Federal tax burden. When one includes the employer's share of this tax, we find that the majority of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The payroll tax has grown dramatically from a level of approximately 1 percent for each employee and employer a little more than a generation ago, to today where it is approximately 15.3 percent. So while Federal revenues have stayed roughly constant as a percentage of the National economy, an ever-larger proportion of the burden of taxes has been carried by the wage earner in the form of payroll taxes. But an equally important point is that these payroll taxes were never intended to finance the general operations of Government, as it is doing today. Quite the contrary. The payroll taxes are supposed to finance the operations of the Social Security system and the Medicare system. I know my colleagues do not need to be reminded of the enormous unfunded liability that exists with respect to the long-term obligations of the Social Security and Medicare systems. These enormous payroll tax burdens, I regret to say, are not being used to reduce that long-term liability. Surplus payroll taxes today are used to buy Government securities, which must be redeemed by the Federal Government in the future to pay back Social Security programs. That money will, of necessity, come from taxation again, to create the general revenues necessary to redeem the bonds. A review of the figures is startling. Right now, Social Security's total income is $451.3 billion and total outflow is $370.8 billion. This leaves a surplus in the Social Security funneled of $80 billion. Of that total, $43.6 billion is in the form of interest payments by the Federal Government to itself, and the other $36.9 billion represents the annual operating surplus in the Social Security trust fund. So each year, we run an annual operating surplus in Social Security that is slightly more than 1 percent of the national payroll. That surplus is combined with interest payments to increase the size of the Social Security trust fund. That trust fund is projected by the trustees to grow each year until it reaches a peak value of $2.89 trillion in the year 2019. I ask my colleagues to think about what that $2.89 trillion means. That $2.89 trillion is not only assets owned by Social Security; more importantly, it is a debt owed by the Federal Government to Social Security. In order to pay the benefits to future beneficiaries, the Federal Government will need to tax the American public, through general tax revenues, to come up with this $2.89 trillion. Every year that we collect these surplus payroll taxes, we create several significant events. We add to the trust funds, and thus we add to the debt owed by the Federal Government. We take payroll taxes from hard-working Americans today and, instead of really saving them, we convert them into a tax burden on the Americans of tomorrow. This certainly is no way to run a government, a country--or a railroad, for that matter. In order to fully understand the bizarre situation in which we are placing ourselves, I ask my colleagues to consider the trustees' projections for the period 2012 through 2019. In the year 2012, we will see the first year of operating deficits within the Social Security trust fund. That means that, in that year, annual Social Security revenues will amount to less than promised benefits. In other words, it will require cash from the general Treasury in that year just to meet the current benefit payments to Social Security recipients. Yet, in that same year, interest compiled by the Social Security trust fund will be an enormous $140 billion. So we will need to take $9 billion of that interest payment from the general fund and use it to pay beneficiaries immediately. The other $131 billion will be credited to the Social Security trust fund, so that the trust fund will grow, theoretically at least, from $2.2 to $2.4 trillion in that year, even as the program is running annual operating deficits. This obviously doesn't work. Think about what will be happening at the same time. We will need money from the general Treasury just to pay current beneficiaries, and billions in assets will be added to the Social Security trust fund--but that doesn't exist--and the trust fund, continuing to grow, will earn even more interest in the next year, to be paid from the general Treasury. So each year--from 2012 through 2019--the Federal Government will make larger and larger contributions to Social Security, in current benefit payments and interest payments. In the year 2018, for example, the Social Security operating deficit will be $147 billion. That means it will have to pay out $147 billion more than it takes in. So, of the $171 billion in interest payments that will be due that year from the Federal Government, $147 billion will be needed right away to pay benefits, and only the remaining $24 billion will continue to build the trust fund. It's in the year 2019, however, that the roof really starts to fall in. Then, even with all the interest payments from the general Treasury and all the current payroll taxes and benefit taxation, there will still not be enough money to pay the Social Security beneficiaries, and we will have to begin to redeem the principal on Social Security trust fund T-bills in order to pay the benefits. Every year that we continue to collect surplus payroll taxes, and thus swell the size of the trust fund, is a year that we add to the unfunded liabilities that we are piling on the heads of our children and their children, the American taxpayers to come. It is largely for this reason that I believe that payroll tax relief is needed. I have introduced a piece of legislation, S. 321, that would give 1 percent of the payroll tax back to the wage earners; in other words, it would be a tax cut, to be saved in an individually owned retirement account. This would give us a Head Start on prefunding some of the massive liability, by moving it off the Government ledger and into genuine savings, because, you see, the basic problem here is that the Social Security system is a pay-as-you-go system. That creates a huge unfunded liability. Until we start to prefund that liability, we are not going to get out from underneath that unfunded liability. The best way to prefund that liability is to take the surplus that we are presently running in the Social Security system, cut taxes, give wage earners back their money, and allow them to save it for their retirement so that they have a savings account, identified to them, in their name, which they can use to benefit them at retirement and, thus, turn a contingent liability into an actual savings vehicle. If we were to pass this bill today, S. 321, we would not solve all of Social Security's problems, but it would eliminate approximately 78 percent of Social Security's projected insolvency. That is a pretty good chunk. We would, however, vastly reduce the burden on tomorrow's economy. For example, whereas, under present law, Social Security will absorb more than 17 percent of the national payroll tax base by the year 2030, under this legislation, it would absorb closer to 14 percent. That is a major drop--3 percent--in our national economy, which will at that time be multiple trillions. That is part of the gain that comes from prefunding Social Security's liability, instead of simply continuing to collect and spend surplus payroll taxes, leaving tomorrow's obligations for another day. It is critical, as we debate the issue of the surplus which is coming, that we make a thoughtful decision on how to handle it. I think a thoughtful decision involves some obvious facts. What is our most significant, looming fiscal problem as a nation? It is the burden of our pension plans, which are unfunded. What is the most significant unfunded pension plan in America? It is the Social Security system. The second logical effort that should be addressed in addressing the surplus is, who gave us the money in the first place? Who has the best right to claim that money? That is clearly the taxpayers of America. We can address both of these issues by following the course that I have outlined here today--cut the Social Security tax, return it to the wage earner, allow the wage earner to start to preinvest, to presave for their retirement, with the taxes which are now going into a fund that is on a cash-flow basis. The taxes are now being used to operate the Government, the general Government, instead of being used and identified as the savings of the Social Security recipients. This is a good policy approach to what is looming as one of the major policy debates that we will confront as a Congress as we move toward the next century. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after completion of the pending motion and amendment, and passage, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, be granted 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Carl Truscott of my staff be granted floor privileges.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members be granted full floor privileges during consideration of the District of Columbia and Omnibus Appropriations bills; James Morhard, Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, Carl Truscott, Dana Quam, Vas Alexopoulos, Luke Nachbar, Scott Gudes, Karen Swanson Wolf, Emelie East, and Jay Kimmit.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 1998. The provisions came about through bi-partisan negotiations and provides $31.8 billion, an increase of $30.9 million above the House level, $135.3 million above the Senate level, and $297 million less than the President's request. Before getting to the details, I want to thank Senator Hollings, and his staff, Scott Gudes, Karen Swanson-Wolf, and Emelie East for all their hard work and dedication to getting this bill written and passed. Their efforts and expertise helped smooth the way for its success through the 99-0 vote in the Senate in July and its presentation to you today. The committee amendment includes many of the provisions that the Senate gave top priority to in its bill, but the funding levels reflect our negotiations with the House. Within the Justice Department, the committee amendment retains the Senate initiatives to fight crimes against children, increases assistance to state and local law enforcement, strengthens counterterrorism activities, bolsters drug control efforts, and provides funding for new juvenile programs. We have funded many programs that will further our efforts in preventing and combating crimes against children. The amendment provides $10 million in additional funding for the FBI's efforts to stop child exploitation on the Internet. In addition, we're making sure those organizations that work closely with the FBI also receive adequate funding to provide much needed support. There is $1.7 million for Missing Children; $6.9 million for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, of which $1.9 million is provided for Internet investigations; $1.2 million for the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center for State and local law enforcement investigations; and an additional $2.4 million for State and local law enforcement to form specialized units to investigate and prevent child exploitation on the Internet. These agencies have promising ideas of ways to improve current law enforcement procedures in this area to stop pedophiles from committing further atrocities. We believe it is the national interest to improve the skills of law enforcement personnel on all levels and supports initiatives to do this. The Community Oriented Policing Services, known as the COPS program, is funded at $1.4 billion. As part of this provision and with direct funding, we were able to preserve the Senate number of $25 million for the Regional Information Sharing System so that law enforcement officers throughout the country have increased access to national criminal databases. The Committee amendment includes an increase in funding for the Violence Against Women Act grants to $270.7 million. We recognize the need to enhance and expand current women's assistance programs as violent crimes against them continue. The Violence Against Women grants will be given to States to be used to develop and implement effective arrest and prosecution policies to prevent, identify, and respond to violent crimes against women. This funding provides domestically abused women and children with additional support services. Only 20 states received Violence Against Women grants in 1996. We believe there should be sufficient funding for more states to participate in these programs. Consequently, we have appropriated funds for this effort. In this amendment, we remain committed to ensuring that the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence community has a comprehensive strategy to combat domestic and international terrorism. In May Congress received from the Attorney General a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy compiled with consultation with other key departments and agencies. During subsequent oversight hearings, it became apparent that vulnerabilities to our national security still exist, especially to the emerging threats from chemical and biological agents and cyber attacks on computer systems within the United States. The hearings also emphasized the need for our efforts to be constantly coordinated among the many participating departments and agencies to make this very critical mission successful. To do this, the conference agreement provides $32.7 million for the Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Threat. We remain concerned about the proliferation of illegal drugs coming across our borders and its impact on our children. In an effort to support law enforcement efforts to combat the rampant spread of illegal drugs, the committee devotes $11 million through the DEA to combat the trade of methamphetamine and $10 million for efforts to reduce heroin trafficking. The COPS Program includes $34 million to stop methamphetamine production. We have created a new Carribean initiative that will disrupt the drug corridors and block the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Over the last few years, the infrastructure needs of the organizations funded in this bill have been neglected. We have made a point of providing funds to repair buildings throughout our agencies. Over $300 million will go to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and Bureau of Prisons to make much needed infrastructure improvements. Regarding the INS, the agreement provides 1000 Border Patrol agents, over $200 million in new initiatives to restore the integrity of the naturalization process, and adds 1000 new beds for detention, and the ultimate deportation of criminal and illegal aliens. As a last mention within the Justice portion of the bill, we have increased funding to $238.6 million dollars for juvenile justice prevention programs with an additional $250 million for a new juvenile accountability block grant. In the area of the Commerce Department, we have made some difficult decisions, but, I think they are constructive ones. We have, for example, provided strong support for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which does high quality research and provides technical data important to our economy. The Sea Grant program, which conducts research of regional importance through colleges and universities, is strongly supported in this bill at a level of $56 million. The committee amendment provides increased funding for the National Weather Service. Many of us are concerned that the agency have the necessary resources to ensure timely warnings of severe weather, including tornados and hurricanes. There is $23.4 million for the U.S. Trade Representative taking into account the amended request made by the President recently. The Bureau of Export Administration has two new requirements which deserve mention. First, the Department of State's encryption export control responsibilities have been transferred to the Export Administration. Second, with the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Export Administration will have primary responsibility for enforcing the convention and is thus provided with $1.9 million to do this. And I've kept the best for last--well, at least the issue that seems to have the most interest of late--The Census compromise achieved by the White House and the House leadership--it has two parts. First, it establishes a commission to oversee the Census and report regularly on the conduct of the Census. Second, it establishes fast track procedures for judicial review of sampling. In the Judiciary portion of the bill, we have had to confront some difficult issues, but, I believe we are providing the American people with a better Judiciary through our efforts. The appropriation is sufficient to maintain current judicial operation levels and takes into account the increase in bankruptcy caseloads and probation population. We are also providing the Justices and judges with the 2.8 percent cost of living adjustment requested in the President's budget. We have established a commission to study the current structure of the circuit courts, especially the controversial Ninth Circuit. During the 1996-1997 session, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 96 percent of the decisions they reviewed from the Ninth Circuit. This high turnover rate is a beacon that the Ninth Circuit is not meeting the needs of the people it serves. The debate over whether to split it has raged for some years. The commission should end the debate over the Ninth Circuit once and for all. Moving on to the State Department, we have fully funded, to the best of our ability, the operations carried out by this Department. We made sure that the day-to-day functions of the State Department are funded at acceptable levels, and we are trying to upgrade their outdated technology systems. Maintaining infrastructure was a top priority for the Senate this year. We are providing $21.4 million above the President's request for the Capital Investment Fund so that desperately needed upgrades in information and communication systems can be done. And as a final noteworthy item, this bill covers the first down payment for U.N. arrears as well as the State Department Reauthorization bill which includes U.N. reform and State Department reorganization, which we have worked so hard to achieve. That is a quick run down of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary provisions before us. I want to thank my staff--Jim Morhard, Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Carl Truscott, Dana Quam, Vas Alexopoulos, and Luke Nachbar--for all their hard work. They, and their democratic counterparts, have spent long hours drafting this legislation. I believe this amendment contains sound provisions that have been agreed to by both parties. The departments and agencies funded in this legislation can only benefit from the passage of these new funding levels. I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this committee amendment. Just to quickly comment on that section of the bill, the language which is in this bill dealing with the funding for State, Commerce, Justice, is similar to the language which passed this Senate by a 99-0 vote. The language which is before the Senate at this time is language which has been agreed to by the Democratic and Republican members of the Appropriations Committee unanimously. Again, I strongly encourage the Senate to pass it. At this time, I yield back the time allocated to myself and Senator Hollings under the bill.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business continue until 2:30.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield back the time on this side. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will immediately proceed to executive session for consideration of Calendar No. 324, the nomination of Charles Siragusa of New York to be a U.S. district judge. Under the order, the time between now and 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member. At the expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the Siragusa nomination. Therefore, Senators should be alerted that there will be a rollcall vote this morning at 10:30 a.m. Following the vote, there will be a period of morning business until 12 noon. At 12 noon the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1292, a bill disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on October 6. While that measure has a 10-hour statutory time limitation, it is the hope of the majority leader that much of that time may be yielded back. The Senate may also consider and complete action on any or all of the following items during today's session: The D.C. appropriations bill, the FDA reform conference report, the Amtrak strike resolution, the intelligence authorization conference report, and any additional legislative or executive items that can be cleared. I also remind all Senators that under rule XXII, they have until 1 p.m. today in order to file timely amendments to H.R. 2646, the A-plus educational savings account bill. Needless to say, all Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout today's session of the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.