Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are awaiting other Members bringing amendments to the floor. I appreciate the enthusiasm and energy of the Senator from South Carolina in his spirited defense of the ATP program, which he, as he has mentioned and which will be generally acknowledged--he is the father of. I would say we are going to have a vote on that at 2 o'clock, and at that time I hope Members would support the amendment of the Senator from Kansas because I believe it makes sense and it is a strengthening amendment to the ATP program. So, at this time I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Brownback amendment No. 980, with no amendments in order to the Brownback amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. The ATP issue has been one of the more contentious issues that we have dealt with within our committee. Last year, it was more contentious than this year because of an agreement reached between the White House and the leadership of the Senate and House. The House and Senate and the White House agreed that this program would be funded. I suspect that they agreed it would be funded because of the strength of the arguments made by the Senator from South Carolina, but I think most people appreciate the fact that I have, since my tenure on this committee, opposed funding for this program. It was over my strong objection that this decision was made. But it was made and I have agreed to live by the budget agreement and, therefore, the money for ATP is in there. But if you acknowledge ATP even as a program that should proceed forward because of whatever arguments we are inclined to accept, it is very hard to understand how we can justify using a program, the purpose of which is to encourage the development of technologies which might not otherwise evolve. That is the key here--they might not otherwise evolve. It is very hard to justify such a program being used to fund Fortune 500 companies' research initiatives. The fact is that Fortune 500 companies, companies with over $2.5 billion in sales, have the capacity to pursue any technology they wish to pursue if they determine that it has some value, if it has some economic value and if it is going to produce some sort of worth to them. And it's very illogical to presume that those companies would not pursue those technologies if they felt there is a value and they have the wherewithal to do it. You have essentially created a piggy bank into which these companies can step or put their hands into if they desire to pursue a technology, which they probably would have pursued anyway if they had the financial wherewithal to do it. But in this instance, there are Federal dollars available, so they say let's use the Federal dollars instead. I think it is much more logical to focus this fund on those entrepreneurs and entities which do not have that sort of flexibility, do not have in-house the capital wherewithal to fund whatever research they desire. That is why I believe we should limit access to these dollars to the smaller companies. And smaller is a relative term here. We are talking about companies up to $2.5 billion of gross sales. That is a pretty big entity. I suspect there are a lot of major companies that fall into that category. In fact, within the State of New Hampshire, I am not sure how many companies would have more than 2.5 billion dollars' worth of gross sales; it would not be many. We are retaining the availability of this program to the vast majority of corporate America and to all of the entrepreneurial world. It is not as if we were handicapping for purposes of this exercise. In fact, there isn't enough money to go around as far as applications are concerned. There are a lot of applications that are not approved. In fact, the Senator from South Carolina cited one in his own State. It just seems much more logical to me that we take this money and, rather than giving it to folks who have the capacity to pursue this research independently and on their own and are simply using the Federal dollars to replace dollars that they would spend anyway, that we give it to companies--or make this money available to entities that do not have the financial wherewithal to pursue these programs; or if they do have it, they would be under more stress than a company that has 2.5 billion dollars' worth of income. So the amendment of the Senator from Kansas makes an immense amount of sense. It is not a dagger in the heart of this program. In fact, I think it is a strengthening amendment for this program. It will significantly improve the nature of this program. And, really, I am a little bit surprised at the intensity of opposition to it because it appears to be an effort to logically and fairly approach this program, rather than just eliminate it, which would be something that many of us would support also. So I think the Senator from Kansas has brought forward an excellent amendment. I hope that we can pass it. I will certainly support it. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Wood, a fellow for Senator Frist's office be given access to the floor during the debate of the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, and the same applies to Floyd DesChamps, a detailee from the Department of Energy with the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GREGG. This request I just made also includes both majority and minority staff. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce this bill, S. 1022, for the fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies. This year we have taken great strides to obtain bipartisan support for this bill and to be responsive to the needs of the people within the budget that we are provided. I think we have achieved this goal. I want to especially acknowledge and thank the ranking member of this committee who for many, many years has served on this committee and whose cooperation, effort, and knowledge has been a core element in developing this bill and achieving progress in making these agencies function effectively. And that, of course, is the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings]. The bill before us includes $31.6 billion for programs administered by the Commerce, State, and Justice Departments, the Judiciary, and related agencies. That is a lot of money, $31.6 billion, but I would note that it is a bill that is frugal. It is $4 billion less than what the President's budget request, and it is over $100 million less than what the House will have passed in its bill in this area. The essential thrust of this bill is to make sure the committee adequately funds the activities of our criminal justice system and to make sure that the States receive adequate funding to undertake an aggressive posture to control the spread of violence and crime in our Nation. As a result, we have increased funding for the Department of Justice by 5 percent over 1997 levels. This represents a fairly significant commitment to that Department, obviously. Within the Justice Department, top priorities include fighting crimes against children; providing assistance to State and local law enforcement; countering terrorism activities; bolstering drug control efforts; and pursuing new juvenile programs. As chairman, I directed the committee to take a close look at the needs of the juveniles in our country. In hearings this year, it was brought to my attention the threats our children face when surfing the Internet. While the Internet can be a place for the world to be at play and to be at the access of children's fingertips, that world can also have its shady side where predators lurk to exploit our children if given the opportunity. The Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], along with organizations like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, has worked to combat pedophile activity on the Internet. In our legislation we provide funding to continue these efforts: $10 million for the FBI to apprehend the pedophiles who use the Internet in their criminal activities; $2.4 million to the local and State law enforcement agencies to form specialized cyber units to investigate and prevent child sexual exploitation; and $6.2 million for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to continue their efforts to educate and work with law enforcement officials in handing child exploitation cases. Also, the committee believes it is in the national interest to improve the skills of our law enforcement personnel on all levels and supports initiatives to do this. The Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS Program, is funded at $1.4 billion so that 100,000 extra police can be hired by our States and our communities. The President's request did not include any funding for the local law enforcement block grant. However, we have provided $503 million so that localities could obtain funding for initiatives to reduce crime and improve public safety. Also, in response to a number of requests from law enforcement officials, we have added $10.5 million to the President's request for a regional information sharing system so that law enforcement officers throughout the country can have increased access to national crime databases. This year the committee has taken a strong stance against the violent acts that are directed toward women and children. Our support includes a $67.3 million increase in the funding for the Violence Against Women Act grants. We recognize the need to enhance and expand current women's assistance programs as violent crimes against them continue. Violence Against Women Act grants will be given to the States 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. This includes access to specially trained prosecutors and law enforcement officials. Only 20 States received Violence Against Women grants in 1996. We believe there should be sufficient funding for more States to participate in this program. Consequently, we have appropriated funds for this effort. And while we have given significant funding to the Violence Against Women Program, other grant programs still receive funding--the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Program, the State Prison Grant Program, and the Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program, just to name a few. The Counterterrorism Fund received $29.5 million so that the law enforcement officials can counter, investigate, and prosecute those people who are involved in terrorist activities. In addition, the funds will be used to conduct terrorism threat assessment against Federal agencies and their facilities. Additional funds have been provided in a classified portion of the bill, which is available to all Members. Like many Members of Congress, the committee is 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 devoted $16.5 million to combat the trade in methamphetamine and $10 million to the effort to reduce heroin trafficking. The committee also provided substantial funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration program to provide adequate equipment for its agents. It does no good to hire new agents--and we are hiring a large number of new agents in this bill--if they do not have the equipment needed to do the job. So this bill takes care of that issue. Over the last few years, the infrastructure needs of organizations funded by 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 FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Prisons to make much-needed infrastructure improvements. This money covers the costs of a new FBI forensics lab at Quantico, State prison grants to help States build new prisons, and facilities for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents we have funded through the Immigration and Naturalization Service. As last mentioned within the Justice portion of the bill, the committee sets aside funding for a Juvenile Block Grant Program, subject to the authorization of the Judiciary Committee. It is our understanding that the authorization may address such issues as the need for increased penalties for criminal street-gang activities and prosecuting violent youth offenders as adults at the discretion of the prosecutor. This funding should assist in undertaking that effort. This is just a brief summary of a wide range of Justice provisions that will help law enforcement combat the threats that Americans face in our daily lives. 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 (NOAA), which provides high-quality research and provides technical data to our economy. In particular, the bill increases funding for the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is important to all coastal and Great Lakes States and provides funding for estuarine research. Since 75 percent of our Nation's population lives near the coastline, placing a priority on preserving our estuarine areas is important. Equally important is the need to conserve the resources that live in our estuaries and oceans. The bill increases funding for protected species research. The Sea Grant Program, which conducts research of regional importance through colleges and universities, is strongly supported in this bill. While we believe NOAA is doing essential work for America, sometimes we disagree with our House colleagues on the level of funding. We intend to address this in conference, and we will go to conference with a strong bill. The committee provides increased funding for the National Weather Service, also. Many of us are concerned that this agency has the resources necessary to ensure timely warning of severe weather, especially hurricanes and tornadoes. The bill contains funding for satellite improvements which are critical to monitoring and predicting the weather. The committee supports the modernization of the Weather Service and looks forward to working with the Department of Commerce to ensure the orderly deployment of technology needed to improve forecasting and warnings. The largest increase in the Department of Commerce is the administration's request for additional funds to prepare for the decennial census. We have had previous discussions on the Senate floor about whether or not to use a sampling technique to conduct the census 2000. The bill contains language on this issue developed on a bipartisan basis during the consideration of the Supplemental Appropriations bill earlier this year. The increase for fiscal year 1998 does not require a decision on whether or not to employ sampling. The committee also funds the trade development and enforcement responsibilities of the Department of Commerce at or slightly above the administration's requests. 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 (CWC), the Export Administration will have the primary responsibility for enforcing the convention. While funds are provided at the requested level to support the Export Administration's enforcement responsibilities, any additional funds which may be needed during fiscal year 1998 should be provided by the Department of Defense or the Department of State. There is some concern that the administration has underestimated the funds needed to enforce CWC. The Department of Commerce should not be required to shoulder all the costs of Chemical Weapons Convention enforcement. Many Senators will be glad to hear that the committee did not agree with the administration's request to zero out public telecommunication facility grants. We went ahead and provided $25 million for this program based on the strong bipartisan support it enjoys. In the judiciary area of the bill, the committee had to confront some difficult issues, but I believe we have provided 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 a 2.8-percent cost- of-living adjustment requested by the President. The largest change--and it is a change I think will be for the best-- is that the ninth circuit Federal court will be split into two circuits, reducing the caseload level in each to a manageable level. During the 1996-97 session, the Supreme Court overturned 96 percent--96 percent--of the decisions reviewed by the ninth circuit. This high overturn rate is a beacon that the Ninth Circuit is not meeting the needs of the people it serves. Last Congress, Chief Judge Wallace stated in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that ``it takes about 4 months longer to complete an appeal in the ninth circuit as compared to the national median time.'' The caseload continues to increase yearly. Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court testified before our committee on April 17 that there are ``very dedicated judges on that circuit, very scholarly judges. * * * But, [he thinks] that institutionally, and from a collegial standpoint, that it is too large to have the discipline and the control that is necessary for an effective circuit.'' While some of my colleagues may disagree, the facts lead me to believe it is past time for the ninth circuit to be split, and we are going to hear a considerable amount of debate on that issue later today. Lastly, for the judiciary, we are providing an additional $2.2 million to the Supreme Court for renovations in an effort to comply with safety regulations and with the Americans With Disabilities Act at the Supreme Court building. Moving on to the State Department, we have fully funded to the best of our abilities, the operations carried out by this Department. We made sure that the day-to-day functions of the State Department are funded at an acceptable level, and we are going a long way toward updating their outdated technology systems. Maintaining infrastructure was a top priority of mine in funding this bill. To do this, we are providing $40.4 million above the President's request for the Capital Investment Fund so that desperately needed upgrades on information and communications systems can be done. It is quite alarming to hear that the State Department is still using Wang computers and that oversees, about 82 percent of the radio equipment, 55 percent of the computer equipment, and 40 percent of the telephone systems are obsolete. These are the people who are representing us in foreign countries and they deserve to have up-to-date equipment. As a final noteworthy item, this bill covers the U.N. arrears as agreed to during the budget talks this year, in addition to supporting the bicameral U.N. reform package found in S. 903, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997. The international organization and peacekeeping efforts are also included in this appropriation. This is a very quick rundown of a very complicated and expansive piece of legislation. I believe it is an extremely strong bill, complying with the ideas that have been guiding the budget process over the last few months. As I mentioned earlier, it is under the President's request and under the House bill. Yet I believe it still represents a sound and strong commitment to the agencies which it has to cover. Before turning this over to my esteemed colleague and ranking member, I want to recognize the contributions of my staff, which have been extraordinary, the members of my staff that I outlined earlier, Kevin Linsky, Paddy Link, Vas Alexopoulos, Jim Morhard, Carl Truscott, Dana Quam, Josh Irwin, and Luke Nachbar; and I also want to acknowledge the ranking member's staff, who do such a super job--Scott Gudes, Emelie East, and Karen Swanson-Wolf. Their help has made a tremendous difference, and we would not have gotten to this point without their assistance. I yield to my ranking member.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the following Appropriations Committee staff members be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this bill: Jim Morhard, Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, Carl Truscott, Dana Quam, Josh Irwin, Scott Gudes, Emelie East, Karen Swanson-Wolf, Jay Kimmitt, Luke Nachbar, and Vas Alexopoulos.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that with respect to the Feinstein amendment regarding the ninth circuit court, there be 4 hours of debate on the amendment equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member or their designees with no second- degree amendments in order to the amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following the expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relationship to the amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to S. 1022, the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the pending Feinstein amendment at 7:45 p.m. this evening; and further, that the time between now and then be equally divided in the usual form, and that there be no amendments in the second degree.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Feinstein be added as cosponsors to Senator Steven's USIA amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point I wish to thank, obviously, my staff and the minority staff for the extraordinary amount of time and energy they have put into this bill. They have been here all day and have done an incredible amount of work in an extremely complex situation, I would say, on a number of occasions. How they sort it all out, I am not sure. But they have and they have done it beautifully. I thank them for their energies. I thank the ranking member for all his time and patience in this exercise, which has been reasonably complicated but very successful as a result of all this.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for all his work.

Mr. GREGG. May I ask the Senator from Arizona to suspend for a second while I propound a unanimous consent request?

Mr. GREGG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from California, if it is agreeable, that we move to the Senator from Arizona for 5 minutes while we work on a possible unanimous consent agreement for a vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, can the Chair advise us of the present time status?

Mr. GREGG. At this time I would have to reclaim my time because we do have some additional speakers. So any additional colloquy should come off the time of the Senator from California.

Mr. GREGG. I have no problem with that. This colloquy can be on our time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, before I proceed with the formal business of the Senate, I just want to congratulate and acknowledge the Senators from Utah in their extraordinarily moving and thoughtful and brilliant statements on the importance of today and the history of Utah and the Mormon Church, which has so reflected effectively the history of this country. The tempo and culture of that experience has been one which has been intertwined with our Nation's strengths and, unfortunately, some of our Nation's failures. Their statements today, I think, as well as anything that I have ever heard, reflect the energy and enthusiasm and vitality and warmth that that church presents to its parishioners and which makes it such a dynamic force in the faith of many people across this country and across the world. So I congratulate them for their truly extraordinary statements.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 24, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. in open session, to consider the nomination of John J. Hamre, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.