july 30, 1993 congressional record-house 17921...

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Friday, July 30, 1993The House met at 10 a.m.The Chaplain, Rev. James David

Ford, D.D., offered the followingprayer:

We pray, O God, for peace in ourworld, so that the weapons of war willbe put aside and people will experiencethe blessings of security. We also prayfor peace in individual hearts and soulsso there will be respect and compassionbetween people of differing back-grounds and attitudes. 0 gracious God,You have created us to live together inpeace and harmony, may we so lift ourthoughts and raise our sights to see thewholeness of body, mind, and spiritthat marks lives that are committed tothe way of serenity and peace. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has exam-ined the Journal of the last day's pro-ceedings and announces to the Househis approval thereof.

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour-nal stands approved.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER. Will the gentlemanfrom Kentucky [Mr. BARLOW] come for-ward and lead the House in the Pledgeof Allegiance.

Mr. BARLOW led the Pledge of Alle-giance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of theUnited States of America, and to the Repub-lic for which is stands, one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr.Hallen, one of its clerks, announcedthat the Senate had passed withoutamendment a bill of the House of thefollowing title:

H.R. 616. An act to amend the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 to permit members ofnational securities exchanges to effect cer-tain transactions with respect to accountsfor which such members exercise investmentdiscretion.

The message also announced that theSenate had passed bills and a concur-rent resolution of the following titles,in which the concurrence of the Houseis requested:

S. 422. An act to amend the Securities Ex-change Act of 1934 to ensure the efficient andfair operation of the government securitiesmarket, in order to protect investors and fa-cilitate government borrowing at the lowestpossible cost to taxpayers, and to preventfalse and misleading statements in connec-tion with offerings of government securities.

S. 1311. An act for the relief of Olga D.Zhondetskaya.

S. Con. Res. 33. Concurrent resolution towaive the provisions of the Legislative Reor-ganization Act of 1970 which require the ad-journment of the House and Senate byJuly 31st.

JAPAN LOW-BALLING US AGAIN(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was

given permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, ournew Trade Representative, MickeyKantor, told Japan that we are notgoing to tolerate illegal trade anylonger. Thank God.

So what happens? The State Depart-ment awards a contract to remodel ourAmbassador's residence in Japan for$7/2 million. Two American companiesbid $10 million. They said there is noway they could have bid $71/2 million.

They are low-balling us to keep usout.

This brings me to several points. No.1, we are really going to crack down ontrade, right?

The State Department laughs in theface of our Trade Representative.

Second of all, if it costs $7/2 millionto remodel the personal residence ofour Ambassador in Japan, what is heliving in, a Taj Mahal?

Congress should tell these Ambas-sadors that we are going to leave thelights on at Motel Six.

We have got a deficit. I think it istime to tell Japan that we are going tocut down on illegal trade before we donot have a job left in this country.

NOW IT'S JUST STUPID(Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clin-ton won election with the phrase: "It'sthe economy, stupid." Well, now afterseeing his budget plan, America discov-ers President Clinton decided to keepthe "stupid," but drop the "economy."

We listened to Bill Clinton run forPresident for months on the greatideas he had for America's economy.Once in office, we find he had only twoafter all: to raise taxes and to increasespending. During the campaign BillClinton said he would focus on theeconomy "like a laser beam." Insteadas President, we get the focus of a fire-fly.

Everyone in this country knows rais-ing taxes and increasing spending will

not solve anything, but will only putmore bureaucrats to work collectingand spending. I presume that evenmany people on the other side of theaisle know this too. But they are beingasked to put party over economy to tryand resuscitate the recession that webrought on by raising taxes the lasttime.

I would only caution President Clin-ton to start thinking what plan he isgoing to produce 2 years from now,when this one does not work any betterthan the last one.

TIME TO MOVE AHEAD ON THEBUDGET

(Mr. BARLOW asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. BARLOW. Mr. Speaker, my peo-ple sent me to Washington to balancethe budget. I am proud that we aremoving in a steady march on this vitalgoal. We have a $500 billion deficit re-duction package. The 1993 deficit isdown to $285 billion this year from theearlier anticipated $322 billion. On theHouse floor, we have carved full sav-ings to term of $28 billion in the 11 ap-propriation bills that have now beenpassed.

Thankfully, I cut back my spendingwhen my banker lowers my interestrate from 9 to 6 percent, because Istrengthened my balance sheet.

The minority party would have uscut, then tax. What are we to do-bringhome the aircraft carriers, chop themup for scrap in a cutting phase, then re-build them from keel up in a minorityparty tax-raising regime?

We have an administration that willlead us to balance in strength, not de-stroy us to balance our budget. Let usmove ahead to build America, to helpour people.

THE GREAT DEBATE HAS BEENTRIVIALIZED

(Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr.Speaker, the purpose of this House andof the Congress is to carry on the greatdebates. It is to talk about where weare going in this country and the direc-tion that we take.

I have been very disappointed in re-cent months that this great debate hasbeen trivialized. The great debate has

l This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., O 1407 is 2:07 p.m.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

July 30, 1993 17921


been sectionalized to where Members ofthe Senate are now saying the Repub-licans are attack dogs because theydare to question what is being done inthe budget.

I think these are the great debatesthat all of us in the country ought tobe involved in. The questions arebroad.

The question is, Do you want moreGovernment or less? The question is,Do you want to pay more taxes orleave more money in the pockets offamilies in this country? Do you wantmore mandates from the Federal Gov-ernment, more intrusion of your life,or do we want more individual initia-tive and individual responsibility?That is the great debate.

If you want more Government, thereis going to be more taxes. If you paymore taxes, you are going to have moreGovernment. If we want to move theother way, and that is the choice, thenthis budget deal does not work.

THE BURDEN OF UNFUNDEDMANDATES ON THE STATES

(Mr. MORAN asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, as we an-guish over the Omnibus Budget Rec-onciliation Act, we might lose sight ofthe fact that what really matters tomost Americans is the quality of theirneighborhoods, the quality of theirschools, the dependability of their po-lice and fire protection, of their publicworks people; but the States and thecities that provide these most neededservices are struggling, struggling withoverwhelming demands on their re-sources, and they do not have the op-tion of financing them through deficitspending like we do at the Federal Gov-ernment level; but we do have the op-portunity to provide them some meas-ure of relief, Mr. Speaker, becauseStates and cities now spend moremoney on complying with unfundedFederal mandates than all the Federalassistance they receive from the Fed-eral Government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues tosupport the Fiscal Accountability andIntergovernmental Reform Act, whichrequires a full analysis of what thoseunfunded Federal mandates will meanto States and localities before they arelegislated by this body.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE CEO'S(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was

given permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, thisweek, President Clinton met with 60CEO's from across the country. Theseleaders of corporate America laudedthe President's plan as a real benefit tothe economy.

Of course, it is easy for these kings ofthe hill to look down on the rest ofAmerica with mock concern. They'vealready made their money. And theyhave been bought off by a Clinton ad-ministration that will barely punishbig business with a slight tax increase.

It is not the corporate giants that Iam concerned about, Mr. Speaker.They will weather the Clinton storm.It is the small businesses that concernme.

It is the mom and pop stores thatwill struggle under the increased infla-tion caused by the Clinton gas tax. It isnew entrepreneurs who will face morechallenges placed by the Clinton cap-ital gains tax. And it is the successfulsmall businesses, those that employthe bulk of the new workers in thiscountry, who will be forced to lay offworkers because of higher incometaxes.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the President canmeet with his corporate buddies, andmaybe they will support his economicplan. But that doesn't tell me a thingabout the small businesses of thiscountry.

O 1010START OVER NOW OR APOLOGIZE

LATER(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given


Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, as webegin to get glimpses of what the rec-onciliation conference will produce,there is a sense of great disappoint-ment among conservative Democratsin this body. As the bill begins toemerge from the conference commit-tee, Mr. Speaker, it looks remarkablylike the 1990 package that PresidentBush signed and later apologized for,the same rate increases on personal in-come taxes, the same energy tax, thesame kind of corporate tax increases,the same kind of program for 5 yearsthat puts taxes first and spending cutslast. That is a disappointment to us.

Worst of all, Mr. Speaker, the planemerges without any control on enti-tlements. We are now spending 120 per-cent of available income. Discretionaryspending in this country is only 18 per-cent. If we do not begin to control themandatory-entitlement side of this'budget, the 82-percent side, I am afraidthis President will have to do whatGeorge Bush did several years fromnow: apologize for a plan that couldnot and did not work.

Mr. Speaker, we are disappointedwith the conference committee. MaybeSenator BOREN is right. Maybe weought to start again from scratch andreach out to all parties in this House.

LET'S START OVER AGAIN(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was

given permission to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, to-day's Washington Post contains a dis-turbing headline, "Economy's Quar-terly Growth Rate Is Surprisingly Ane-mic."

Mr. Speaker, this growth rate is nowdown almost a full percentage pointannualized below what the Clinton ad-ministration has projected. Of coursethat decline will have dramatic impacton the size of the deficit.

Unfortunately, this is exactly thetype of thing one would anticipatewhen there is so much talk of tax in-creases. This becomes particularly truewhen we consider that small businesscreates' the vast bulk of new jobs inthis country, over three-quarters, andthe President's plan is going to se-verely penalize our successful smallbusinesses.

Also, Mr. Speaker, Paul Craig Rob-erts has written in today's Wall StreetJournal in an article entitled "InterestRate Bloopers," that the Clinton ad-ministration has actually reviseddownward its projections for economicgrowth.

It is not too late, Mr. Speaker, tohave real job creation and real tax cutsfor families. Let us begin now.

SMALL BUSINESS NEEDS THEECONOMIC PLAN

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina askedand was given permission to addressthe House for 1 minute and to reviseand extend his remarks.)

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr.Speaker, the Wall Street Journal lastweek documented the lengths to whichopponents of the Democratic economicplan have been willing to go to misleadthe American people.

They have willfully distorted theplan's effects on small business, whenin fact over 90 percent of our smallbusinesses could end up paying less intaxes because of liberalized deductionsfor business expenses, the research anddevelopment tax credit, and other in-centives-to say nothing of lower inter-est rates and other benefits of deficitreduction.

They have feigned great sympathyfor the so-called "sub-S" small busi-nesses as a smokescreen for their shel-tering of the very wealthy. But theyknow that only 4 percent of those com-panies would see any tax increase, andthat those included in this 4 percentmake an average of $560,000 per year.

They talk glibly about the Repub-lican alternative, but they never ac-knowledge that it falls $70 billion shortin deficit reduction and eliminatesmost of the plan's probusiness incen-tives.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass theplan and to get small business and theAmerican economy on the move again.

17922 July 30, 1993


LET'S START OVER

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, be-fore this bad budget bill is passed, it istime to follow the advice of millions ofAmericans, from Democrat SenatorDAVID BOREN to my colleague a fewminutes ago, the gentleman from Lou-isiana [Mr. TAUZIN], to Ross Perot:"Let's start over."

As the Lynchburg News and Advance,a newspaper in my district, put it sowell this week, "It's time to kill thebudget bill and start over. The legisla-tion, a centerpiece of President Clin-ton's administration, has become noth-ing more than a hodge-podge of politicsthat will strangle the economy and thetaxpayers."

The President broke the one promisethat matters most to the Americanpeople; he did not cut spending first. Infact, he has more increases than cutsin domestic spending.

Congress should listen to the Amer-ican people, who are saying with onevoice, "cut spending first; don't raiseour taxes; and clean up your own housebefore you demolish ours."

SUPPORT URGED FOR THEEARNED INCOME TAX CREDITEXPANSION

(Mr. HAMBURG asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday in strong support of the earnedincome tax credit expansion in theHouse reconciliation bill.

Mr. Speaker, the House expanded theearned income tax credit because wefelt that no family with a parent whoworks full time should have to raisetheir children in poverty. It was a mod-est, but critical commitment that wemade to working families trying tomake ends meet. In my own district,over 23,000 children are living in pov-erty. Those children and their parentsneed and deserve this support and en-couragement.

I remind my House colleagues thatour expansion of the earned income taxcredit was intended in part to offsetthe effects of new taxes on workingfamilies. Make no mistake: We needthe full expansion of the earned incometax credit to avoid taxing working fam-ilies and childless workers even deeperinto poverty.

I urge conferees on the bill to honorour commitment to families strugglingto make ends meet. Protect workingfamilies with the full expansion of theearned income tax credit.

WE CANNOT AFFORD ILLEGALIMMIGRANTS

(Mr. GOSS asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, typical ofthe Federal Government, a group offoreign terrorists had to blow up a sky-scraper, kill innocent victims, and cre-ate mayhem to get the Government'sattention about the illegal-alien prob-lems we have. We simply cannot affordto be overwhelmed by illegal aliens,terrorists or not, and we cannot affordto provide unlimited services to mil-lions of illegal immigrants who comeby land and by sea. We have a processfor orderly and lawful immigration. Itis not working. Our ability to maintainthat order and enforce our laws is jeop-ardized by a lack of resources and lackof commitment to get serious. A newstudy projects that, business as usualwill cost us $187 billion for illegal im-migrant services in the next decade. Iask my colleagues, Wouldn't it makemore sense to invest those resources inprotecting U.S. citizens and providingthem better services?

GIVE TAX BREAKS TO THE WORK-ING POOR, NOT BILLIONAIRESAND BIG CORPORATIONS

(Mr. SANDERS asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker,throughout the State of Vermont, andour entire Nation, millions of Ameri-cans were working 40, 50, 60 hours aweek for minimum wage or 5 bucks anhour, and in many cases the harderthey work, the deeper they fall intopoverty and the harder it is to raisetheir families. Meanwhile, the wealthi-est people in our country continue toclip their stock and bond coupons andgrow richer.

Perhaps the most exciting aspect ofthe budget passed by the House of Rep-resentatives is the increase and expan-sion of the Earned Income Tax CreditProgram. Essentially, what this pro-posal does is to say to a working fam-ily, especially those with children, "Ifyou're a low-income worker, we'regoing to lower your taxes so that youcan keep your family out of poverty."Finally, we're going to give a tax breakto those people who need it most, theworking poor, rather that just to thebillionaires and the big corporations.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal wouldraise the maximum tax credit for theworking poor to $3,500 and would ex-pand eligibility so that in my ownState of Vermont, close to 26,000 fami-lies will be eligible for this tax break.

SYRIA SHOULD BE CONDEMNED,NOT COMMENDED

(Mr. LEVY asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. LEVY. Mr. Speaker, I rise todaytroubled over President Clinton's re-mark praising the Government of Syriafor what he called its "commendablerestraint" during the hostilities takingplace between Israel and Hezbollah insouthern Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, Syria itself is respon-sible for many of the actions carriedout by Hezbollah. In fact, there is littledoubt that Syria has indirectly backedHezbollah for quite some time. JustTuesday, a State Department official,appearing before the Europe and Mid-dle East Subcommittee, claimed thatSyria indeed could have some "influ-ence" on Hezbollah remaining in Leb-anon.

Mr. Speaker, what was the Presidentthinking about? This Nation-and ourPresident-must recognize that Syriahas become the middleman, the gunrunner if you will, controlling the flowof arms from Iran to Hezbollah insouthern Lebanon. Syria also operatesbases within its borders which are usedfor Hezbollah training.

Mr. Speaker, under no circumstanceshould Syria be commended for its rolein the recent outbreak of hostilities insouthern Lebanon. Instead, Syriashould be condemned and its actionsdenounced by the President and ourDepartment of State.

O 1020

DEFENSE CONVERSION HOLDS OUTPROMISE OF NEW JOBS

(Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendher remarks.)

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, Ihave some very good news for those inthis body who have worked very hardto find ways to create new jobs, jobsthat will support the middle class, andthat is that the results are in on ourconversion for defense diversificationprojects that were out for the last fewmonths in the country.

While many people said a lot of com-panies would not play, guess what? It isso oversubscribed we can probably onlyfund one-sixteenth of the proposalswhich will come in, and that will be agreat tragedy.

Under this plan, what happened wasthat you were to take defense researchand development and find a way toapply it to the private sector. You haveto put up half the money, so every dol-lar the Federal Government puts up,you put up the same amount.

So here we are. We are going to putout all these terrific plans that havecome in, they are way oversubscribed,

July 30, 1993 17923

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 30, 1993

and there is not enough money to putthem out. Let me tell the Membersright now that there will be a foreigninvestor for every one we turn down,and we will wake up and find this re-search moved offshore again if we donot look at this.

THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINIS-TRATION CELEBRATES ITS 40THANNIVERSARY

(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend her remarks.)

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speak-er, I am pleased to be here this morn-ing to salute the Small Business Ad-ministration which today celebrates its40th anniversary. In 1953, the Honor-able William Silas Hill, a Republicanfrom Colorado and a native of Kelly,KS, who was chairman of the House Se-lect Committee on Small Business in-troduced the Small Business Act of 1953which established the SBA. PresidentDwight D. Eisenhower asked the Con-gress for expeditious consideration ofthe legislation and as a result the finalbill was placed on his desk and signedby him on July 30, 1953.

The SBA's mission to aid, counsel,and assist small business has remainedclear and steadfast throughout theyears. Since its inception, it has pro-vided more than 12,800,000 loans, con-tracts, counseling sessions, and otherforms of assistance to small firmsthroughout the country.

President Eisenhower's vision-theSmall Business Administration-servesas the catalyst for today's entre-preneurs. From job creation to re-search and innovation, small businessis truly America. I salute the SBA onits 40th anniversary. I thank all its em-ployees, both past and present, fortheir endeavors on behalf of the Nationand I wish the agency's new Adminis-trator, Erskine Bowles, nothing butthe best of luck during his tenure. Iknow all of my colleagues in bothHouses of Congress share my senti-ments.

NAFTA JOBS: PROCTOR SILEX

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, today Iwould like to tell the Members anotherstory, one about Proctor Silex, whichproduces the small electric applianceswe use in our homes, appliances liketoasters, coffeemakers, and hand mix-ers.

Once upon a time Proctor Silex man-ufactured steam irons in SouthernPines, NC, where workers were mostlyminority women. Employees with 20years seniority earned up to $7 perhour, enough to support their families,

educate their children, and have some-thing left over for their retirement.

But when Proctor Silex moved manu-facturing operations to Ciudad Juarez,Mexico, in July 1991, over 800 NorthCarolina workers lost their jobs. Theywere replaced by nearly 1,400 Mexicanworkers earning $4 per day-a dif-ference of $7 an hour compared to $4 aday.

Mr. Speaker, this sign appears at thefront of the Proctor Silex plant in Mex-ico. Translated, it says: "Proctor Silexseeks production workers for bothshifts, hiring immediately." And thatis the real message of NAFTA-more ofour people in unemployment lines andexploited Mexican citizens.

AMERICA THREATENED WITHPROSPECTS OF WAR

(Mr. ROTH asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I am herethis morning to ask my colleagues ifthey are concerned that America maywell be getting involved in war thisweekend. I hope everyone had a chanceto see the headline this morning whichsaid: "We Seek To Defend SarajevoWith Force, Britain And France UrgedTo Support the Bombing."

Once the bombs start dropping, I sayto my friends, we are at war. The Clin-ton administration is seeking Frenchand British agreement to use militaryforce.

Has the administration been in thisbody to ask whether we agree that weshould go to war or get involved in acivil war in Bosnia? I do not think any-body from the administration has beenhere to ask anyone here in this Cham-ber. Yet, according to the Constitution,only the Congress can declare war.

This is a very, very serious situation.The administration has been trying toget us involved in that war for a longtime, and now this weekend they maywell do it. We were supposed to be con-sulted this morning. The administra-tion has canceled that consultation.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends thisis serious business. I am asking theMembers to focus on this and to give ittheir consideration.

THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT

(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker,today the President will be discussinghis proposal for increasing the earnedincome tax credit, which is containedin the budget reconciliation bill. Theproposal substantially raises the levelof the credit for working families withchildren-to lift working families outof poverty-and provides a modestcredit to very poor workers without

children-to help ensure that the doorsof opportunity are open to all Ameri-cans who want to work hard and getahead. This proposal makes good onthe commitment to a new direction thePresident announced in his State of theUnion Address. He said:

The new direction I propose will make thissolemn and simple commitment: by expand-ing the refundable earned income tax credit,we will make history; we will reward thework of millions of working poor Americansby realizing the principle that if you work 40hours a week and you've got a child in thehouse, you will no longer live in poverty.

EITC contributes to overall economicgrowth: The Clinton economic plan re-duces the deficit by $500 billion butstill finds room for this historic expan-sion to give incentives to working poorfamilies across this country. The Presi-dent is fundamentally committed todeficit reduction, investing in people,and rewarding work. To ensure ourcountry's long-term economic growth,all Americans must be encouraged andintegrated into our economy so thatthey can contribute to, rather thanhinder, growth. As the President hassaid repeatedly, we do not have a per-son to waste.

Pro-work: The EITC is pro-work be-cause, unlike other forms of assistanceto the poor, only those who work andhave earnings can receive benefits.And, unlike welfare benefits, EITC ben-efits increase substantially as earningsrise, thereby providing real incentivesto work and strive for higher earnings.This strong pro-work incentive willalso be a major component of thePresident's welfare reform policy inthat it provides a major incentive tochoose work over welfare.

Pro-family and pro-independence:The EITC is pro-family because it isavailable only to families that staywith their children and their is no dis-crimination against two-parent fami-lies. The EITC fosters independence,not dependence, because it is a refund-able credit-even very poor workingfamilies whose incomes are too low toowe income tax have incentive to workbecause they can receive the credit.Rural working families are especiallylikely to benefit. A report by the Cen-ter for Budget Policy Priorities foundthe EITC to be as or more important tothe rural working poor than any anti-poverty program.

A real tax cut affecting over 20 mil-lion households: The EITC is not justan anti-poverty program but a tax cut.Families who are both working poorand lower middle class but are havingtrouble making ends meet will get abreak from their income taxes. The re-fundable credit will also more thancompensate for the modest costs of theenergy tax. This tax cut will reach 15million families with children and 7million very poor households withoutchildren. More than 75 percent of work-ing families with children who cur-rently receive the EITC will benefit

17924

July 30, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

from its expansion and 8 million fami-lies and households could be addedunder the President's proposal.

HISTORY OF THE EITC

First enacted in 1975, the EITC wasthe brainchild of Senator Russell Long,a conservative southern populist andthe former Chairman of the Senate Fi-nance Committee. Long envisioned amodest credit to provide tax relieffrom the FICA payroll tax to low- andmoderate-income working people withchildren and to encourage work. Ini-tially, families could receive a maxi-mum credit of $400 and benefits aver-aged $200 a year. Since then, Congresshas increased the EITC a number oftimes. In 1991, nearly 14 million fami-lies received EITC benefits.

But poverty has risen substantiallyin the past two decades. The erosion ofwage levels, especially for low-skilledjobs, has taken its toll on millions ofhardworking people. The number offull-time workers who find that theycannot make enough to keep their fam-ilies above poverty increased by 50 per-cent between 1979 and 1990. A family offour with full-time minimum wageearnings will be well below the povertyline in 1993, even with EITC benefits. Ifthe same family receives food stamps,they are' still as much as $2,000 belowthe poverty line. America's childrensuffer the most from this trend. Today,one out of every four children under 6lives in poverty, while studies suggestthat poverty adversely affects intellec-tual development.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CLINTON EITC PROPOSAL

Lifting families out of poverty. Theproposal would increase the EITC to amaximum credit of $3,500. It will en-sure that if a family of four or fewerpeople has a full-time minimum wageworker, the family would be lifted tothe poverty line so long as it also re-ceived food stamps.

Substantial simplification and out-reach. Families will find the crediteasier to apply for so that both tax fil-ers and the IRS can better manage thecredit without making mistakes. TheIRS will also begin an aggressive andcomprehensive campaign of outreachto ensure that every American entitledto the EITC will be aware of a methodof receiving it through their pay-checks.

New, modest EITC for very poorworkers without children. PresidentClinton's proposal to Congress also es-tablishes a small credit of a few hun-dred dollars a year for very poor work-ers without children. The new credit,limited to workers with incomes below$9,000, will offset the costs of the en-ergy tax for these workers.

CORPORATE LEADERS CURRYINGFAVOR WITH THE ADMINISTRA-TION(Mr. WELDON asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, somepeople will do anything to buy access,to have a seat at the table, to protectspecial tax treatment, to curry favorwith the tax-bill writers and the Gov-ernment contract-letting establish-ment. Sixty-seven fat-cat corporateleaders sold out the American economyfor the largest tax increase in our his-tory, for no real cuts in spending ex-cept for defense, and even that is de-batable, and massive increases in newFederal spending.

Mr. Speaker, we will remember thecorporate gang of 67 when they comeback again and again in this sessioncomplaining about mandates, govern-mental intrusion, and the rest of theClinton antibusiness agenda.

Mr. Speaker, the Clinton CO's havemade it clear that they will sell outtheir principles in order to win browniepoints with the White House, but withthe soak-the-capitalist mentality ofthe Clinton administration, theamounts to paying the cannibals to eatyou last.

ISRAEL'S DEFENSIVE MOVESDRAW UNFAIR CRITICISM

(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, as wespeak, Israel is responding to a seriesof attacks on its soldiers and civil-ians-and on peace itself-by Syrian-backed Hezbollah terrorists based insouthern Lebanon.

Hezbollah, identified by our own CIAas the world's principal internationalterrorist organization, over the lastmonth has indiscriminately fired hun-dreds of Katyusha rockets into smallIsraeli towns of the northern Galilee.

Israel, as any nation would, is takingaction to defend its borders. And yet,U.N. Secretary General BoutrosBoutros-Ghali deplores Israel's ac-tions-and, disappointingly, our ownPresident praises Syria for its re-straint.

Restraint? These attacks on Israelare the direct responsibility of Hafizal-Assad of Syria.

It is undisputed that Syria controlsthe Bekaa valley and the terroristbases that Hezbollah uses to launch itsattacks on Israel.

It is undisputed that weapons forHezbollah flow through Damascus on aregular basis.

And it's undisputed that 2 weeks ago,right before the Hezbollah attacks onIsrael intensified, an Iranian 747 landedin Damascus and under Syrian super-vision, weaponry was trucked directlyto the terrorists in Lebanon.

Instead of praising Syria's restraint,our Government must condemn Syria'saggression. Syria cannot be showered

with United States good will for par-ticipating in the peace process at thesame time it wages a proxy war againstIsrael.

Syria can't have it both ways. Sec-retary Christopher should make thisvery clear when he meets with the Syr-ian President next week.

It is time for Syria to prove that itwants peace with Israel, not just piecesof Israel.

O 1030

REMEMBER THE PROMISES?

(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, re-member when Gov. Bill Clinton prom-ised Arkansas voters that if they re-elected him in 1990 he wouldn't run forPresident, but then did? Well, that wasa hint of broken promises yet to come.

Remember last year when candidateClinton promised he wouldn't hike thegas tax on the backs of middle Amer-ica. Now he wants middle America topay 4 to 6 cents a gallon more, whichwill also fuel inflation.

Remember when candidate Clintonpromised seniors he wouldn't tamperwith Social Security and said, "Youcan take that one to the bank." Now hewants retirees with incomes as low as$40,000 to pay $1,000 more in Social Se-curity taxes.

Remember when candidate Clintonpromised middle America a tax cut,not a tax hike? Remember when hepromised to cut the deficit in half andnow doesn't come close. The list goeson and on.

Given Mr. Clinton's record, the onlysurprise is that we are still surprisedwhen he breaks his promises.

WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS?(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given per-

mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, at this verymoment negotiators are striving toreach final agreement on a deficit re-duction package. The public has a rightto know why there are no Republicansin the room.

The reason is the minority chose toattack, not to participate. Now Repub-lican attack dogs are barking at theAmerican business community. Theminority does not come here to defendtheir alternative, in part because theyare $100 billion short, and because ithad $100 billion worth of unspecifiedcuts.

The public wants deficit reduction.The majority must meet this respon-sibility, with or without the minority.

17925


SENIOR CITIZEN CONSUMERPROTECTION ACT OF 1993

(Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendher remarks.)

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker,today I am introducing the Senior Citi-zen Consumer Protection Act of 1993.

Our senior citizens are one of our Na-tion's greatest resources. But, increas-ingly these seniors receive mailingsfrom unscrupulous organizations whichprey upon the elderly. In order to raisecontributions from seniors, these orga-nizations lead seniors to believe thismail is coming directly from an officialGovernment agency such as the SocialSecurity Administration.

I am sorry to say these organizationsare not working to help senior citizens,instead they are playing off of un-founded fears about Social Security.

The legislation I have introducedtoday will increase penalties on groupswhose mailings suggest they are linkedto Government agencies or use otherfraudulent practices to garner support.It is my hope that this legislation willcurb abuses so that our seniors won'tbe unjustifiably convinced to contrib-ute their hard-earned dollars to organi-zations, which state they will be thevoice of seniors in Washington, DC.

This legislation will penalize anyonewho defrauds seniors while it will con-tinue to allow those organizationswhich operate in an effective and ethi-cal manner to continue their work.

I encourage my colleagues in Con-gress to join me in protecting our sen-ior citizens by cosponsoring this legis-lation.

CONGRATULATIONS TO KIMBERLYAIKEN, MISS SOUTH CAROLINA

(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I risetoday to congratulate Ms. KimberlyAiken on recently being crowned MissSouth Carolina. I am proud to stateMs. Aiken is one of my constituentsand also the first African-Americanwoman to receive this honor.

Ms. Aiken is a graduate of ColumbiaHigh School and a rising sophomore atthe University of South Carolina.While serving as Miss Columbia overthe past year, Ms. Aiken founded theHomeless Education and Resource Or-ganization, a nonprofit group whichprovides food, clothing, and counselingfor the homeless.

During her reign as Miss South Caro-lina, Ms. Aiken plans to continue herefforts on behalf of the homeless andraise public awareness about the plightof the homeless in South Carolina.

I am sure Ms. Aiken will representthe State of South Carolina during thecoming year with grace and dignity

and I wish her much success in the up-coming Miss America pageant this fall.

WELCOME KELSEY LAZIO

(Mr. LEACH asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise thismorning with good news. This morningat 6:10 a.m. our colleague RICK LAZIO,his wife Pat and their daughter Mollywelcomed a new daughter and sisterKelsey. Kelsey weighs 7 pounds and sheand her mother are doing fine.

Who says in these days of gridlockthat Congress cannot produce anythingof value?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BARLOW). The Chair joins in the cele-bration.

ON THE USE OF AIR STRIKES INTHE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

(Mr. MANZULLO asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I amvery concerned about recent news re-ports that the Clinton administrationplans to launch air strikes against tar-gets in Yugoslavia.

One day the mission is to protectU.N. peacekeepers. The next it's to pro-tect Moslem civilians and relief con-veys. Will the mission for our aviatorsexpand over the weekend?

The lesson of Vietnam and DesertStorm is this: Do not send our troopsinto combat without fully explainingwhy we are there and how we will getout.

Mr. Speaker, because no one from theadministration has consulted Congresson this issue, I fear that we may beboxed into supporting an ongoing airstrike campaign in Yugoslavia.

How will we distinguish friend fromfoe? How can air strikes stop mines andsmall arms fire against relief convoysand innocent civilians?

In my view, air strikes will onlybring us into further conflict in thattroubled region. It's time to recognizethat injecting United States force inthe Balkans will only heighten ten-sions and jeopardize our troops.

Let us not put our brave uniformedmen and women in harms way to de-fend a policy that has not been fullythought out.

PUBLIC DOES NOT SUPPORTINCREASED TAXES

(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, thesupporters of the tax increase plan are

somewhat confused about the Repub-lican position on this. I want to say tothem that, first of all, no one is quietlygoing around the Republican Cloak-room saying we are going to vote "no"and look like heroes, but let us hopethis passes because it is good medicine.

Mr. Speaker, no one really believesthat. We do not think it is good medi-cine at all. It is going to add another $1trillion to the national debt.

It is still a deficit budget, and, con-trary to the claims of the Democratswho support the plan, it is not good forsmall business. But do not take myword, nor should you take their word.Just call the National Federation ofIndependent Businesses, the U.S.Chamber, or go ask your neighborhoodpet store, clothes store, or baker ifthey support the plan. They will tellyou in a minute, "No, you are out ofyour mind." Small business has takenall it can take. They do not want high-er taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I join the bipartisan co-alition of Democrats and Republicanswho are saying let us vote no this nextweek on the tax that comes out, andlet us start again in a bipartisan fash-ion and address the deficit in a seriousway.

PUBLIC WANTS SPENDING CUTSFIRST

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speak-er, I was kind of amused last night. Iturned on the news, and there wasPresident Clinton telling many of hisDemocrat supporters in the Congressthat if they voted for his huge tax in-crease, he would be very popular withthe American people.

Well, I want to say to my Democratcolleagues, do not be hoodwinked.Think about this before you vote forthe largest tax increase in U.S. history.The American people do not want it.

Mr. Speaker, if you do not believethat, look at what happened in Texas.Twenty-six counties that never votedRepublican voted for the Republicancandidate, and she won a landslide.And let us look at the President'shome State. Two days ago, for only thefourth time in 100 years, they voted fora Republican Lieutenant Governor.

The message is very clear, and it iscoming across this country to Membersof Congress and to all elected officials.They do not want higher taxes. Theydo not want more Government spend-ing. They want you to cut spendingfirst.

To those of you who sign on to thePresident's program, remember what Iam telling you right now, because Icare about you very much: You willnot be back in 1995.

July 30, 199317926


TRIBUTE TO GEN. MATTHEW B.RIDGWAY

(Mr. SANTORUM asked and wasgiven permission to address the Housefor 1 minute and to revise and extendhis remarks.)

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Speaker, youmay have noticed the flags in the Cap-itol are at half staff today, and the rea-son is because today at Arlington Cem-etery a long-time resident of my dis-trict and a true American hero will beburied, Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway,whom Eliot Cohen called "perhaps thegreatest American field commander ofthe century."

General Ridgway had served in theU.S. Army since 1917, a career markednot only by a first-rate soldier's will-ingness to take on the enemy and win,but also by the love and devotion of themen who fought alongside him.

During World War II, GeneralRidgway led troops in successful cam-paigns in Sicily, Normandy, and theBattle of the Bulge. But GeneralRidgway is perhaps best rememberedfor his leadership during the Koreanwar.

D 1040It is ironic that the general was

taken from us one day short of the 40thanniversary of the truce which endedhostilities in the war he fought so hardto win.

General Ridgway was called upon totake command of the demoralized350,000-man U.N. Forces in Korea onChristmas Day 1950. At the time, theU.N. forces in Korea were in full re-treat following the Chinese counter-attack earlier that year. Through sheerforce of will and personality, GeneralRidgway restored in his troops the en-ergy and the will to win. He halted theretreat and proceeded to lead a dra-matic and historic offensive and pushedthe Chinese and North Korean troopsback beyond the 38th parallel. Indeed,Gen. Omar Bradley describedRidgway's effort in Korea as "thegreatest feat of personal leadership inthe history of the Army."

Yet for all of his great leadership,General Ridgway wanted to be remem-bered as a, simple soldier who served hiscountry. In fact, he cherished his Com-bat Infantry Badge, an award given tothousands of other foot soldiers, morethan any other decoration.

Today I would like us all to remem-ber this great soldier and the men andwomen who had the honor to servewith him.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.BARLOW). The Chair will remind Mem-bers that we are gratified that ourguests are with us in the gallery, butthe Members are not to refer to thegallery members when they arepresent.

IN SUPPORT OF THE CLINTONPLAN

(Mr. FAZIO asked and was given per-mission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the WallStreet Journal headlined yesterdaythat support for the Clinton economicplan is growing. In fact, by a com-fortable 54 to 32 percent margin, thepeople of this country say the Clintonplan is a step in the right direction.

And importantly enough, particu-larly after the barrage of 1-minutes wehave had from the minority today, 63percent say the Republicans are actingout of political motivation, not in sin-cere terms in their opposition to thisplan.

I think the reason that the support isgrowing is, frankly, because the publicis getting beyond the rhetorical bar-rage, getting to the facts.

For example, the first start in wel-fare reform is included in this package.For the first time, anyone who worksfull time and has a child at home willbe lifted out of poverty by their work,not by some Government assistance.

It is also important to point out thatwe have verified that 96 percent of thesmall businesses in this country willnot pay more taxes. In fact, they willbe given additional expensing.

Members, this plan helps the Amer-ican economy. It is our one alternativeto gridlock.

NEA FUNDING

(Mr. HASTERT asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, yester-day, the Christian Action Networkbrought to Capitol Hill an exhibition ofpictures which have been exhibited atmuseums funded with taxpayer dollarsthrough the National Endowment forthe Arts. These pictures would, I be-lieve, disgust most Americans. Andwhile I believe the Constitution pro-tects artists who want to create suchso-called art, I don't understand whythe taxpayers need to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, those who support tax-payer funding of these pictures com-plain about the evils of censorship. Yetwhen the exhibit of these picturescame to the Hill, those who decry cen-sorship would not allow those of us whomust vote for the funding to see thepictures. The exhibit was moved from aroom in the Capitol, to the HouseAnnex Building and ultimately shutdown after only 15 minutes, with Mem-bers of this House ushered out by Cap-itol Police.

Mr. Speaker, if we can't look at it,maybe we shouldn't have to pay for it.

CONGRATULATIONS TO MORIHIROHOSOKAWA

(Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked andwas given permission to address theHouse for 1 minute and to revise andextend his remarks.)

Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak-er, I want to be one of the first to con-gratulate the new Prime Minister ofJapan, Morihiro Hosokawa. He is anoutspoken advocate for opening theJapanese market to foreign trade.

This is exactly what President Clin-ton has called for. It was just a coupleof weeks ago that President Clintonmade tremendous progress in Tokyo onthe G-7 talks. He laid the groundworkfor the elimination of tariffs on phar-maceuticals, construction equipment,steel, medical equipment and hoping toprovide for lower tariffs throughoutthe world.

This is what is needed at this pointin history. This will help to bolster theinternational markets.

I wish my greatest congratulationsto the new Prime Minister of Japan. Itis my hope that President Clinton andhe will be able to work together toopen up those markets and to begin tolevel off the playing field in the inter-national economy.

REGINALD MARTINEZ JACKSON(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given


Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, somepeople say we are too serious in thisHouse of Representatives. I would re-mind them that the people's business isserious. Others say we do not seem toagree on anything, and that is simplynot so.

On the first point, we occasionallypause in our serious deliberations todeal with matters on the lighter side oflife. And on the second point, on occa-sion, more rare than frequent, we dojust about all of us agree on something.I have one for my colleagues.

On Sunday, in Cooperstown, NY,Reginald Martinez Jackson, Reggie,Mr. October, the self-proclaimed"straw that stirred the drink" will beimmortalized by his induction into theNational Baseball Hall of Fame.

He is the 29th player in the history ofbaseball to be inducted in his first yearof eligibility, and his voting percentageis the 10th highest in the history ofthat great game.

What a record: 2,584 hits, 702 runsbatted in, 563 home runs. And he wasthe power hitter, a speedster. He stole226 bases. He led his team to 11 divi-sional championships, 5 World Series.

My colleagues, join me in salutingReginald Martinez Jackson, Mr. Octo-ber.

RECONCILIATION(Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

17927July 30, 1993

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 30, 1993

minute and to revise and extend her re-marks.)

Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Speaker, nextweek we will be voting on a measurethat sets the basic policy of this coun-try for not only the next year but thenext 5 years, reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, in this basic policychange, there is one very importantissue. There are a lot of them, butthere is one that I would like to speakabout today, EITC.

What in the world is EITC? I will tellmy colleagues what it is. It is theearned income tax credit. What itwould do is to make a basic change inthis country's policy that every familythat has children that works full timeis going to be lifted out of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that thepeople on the other side of the aislewho cry for welfare reform, who saythis country has lost its work ethic andis making people dependent on govern-ment, do you think, Mr. Speaker, theyare going to vote for reconciliationnext week?

DEMOCRATS KILLED THEPRESIDENT'S ECONOMIC PROGRAM

(Mr. WALKER asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, when wesee the flags flying at half staff overthe Capitol Building this morning, weknow they are flying for that greatAmerican soldier, Matthew Ridgway.

But some Americans might assumethat they are also flying for the Presi-dent's original economic program, be-cause the Democrats on Capitol Hillkilled the President's original eco-nomic program last night.

They decided that unlike what thePresident wanted, there will be no Btutax. Instead, there will be a gas taxaimed at the heart of the middle class.They decided that instead of the Presi-dent's $500 billion of deficit reductionthat we will get less than that in thenew package. Instead, what we will getis a number very similar to what theRepublicans produced on the floorwithout raising one penny of taxes.

And so the President's original eco-nomic program is dead. And instead,Capitol Hill Democrats have sub-stituted for it a plan remarkably likethe 1990 budget deal. And what hap-pened with the 1990 budget deal? Itkilled the economy.

This plan will kill the economy aswell. American middle-class workerswill lose their jobs because Capitol HillDemocrats and the President could notagree on the direction the countryshould move.

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATIONOF H.R. 2150, COAST GUARD AU-THORIZATION ACT OF 1993Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, by direc-

tion of the Committee on Rules I call

up House Resolution 206 and ask for itsimmediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-lows:

H. RES. 206Resolved, That at any time after the adop-

tion of this resolution the Speaker may, pur-suant to clause l(b) of rule XXIII, declare theHouse resolved into the Committee of theWhole House on the state of the Union forconsideration of the bill (H.R. 2150) to au-thorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 forthe United States Coast Guard, and for otherpurposes. The first reading of the bill shallbe dispensed with. General debate shall beconfined to the bill and shall not exceed onehour equally divided and controlled by thechairman and ranking minority member ofthe Committee on Merchant Marine andFisheries. After general debate the bill shallbe considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consideras an original bill for the purpose of amend-ment under the five-minute rule the amend-ment in the nature of a substitute rec-ommended by the Committee on MerchantMarine and Fisheries now printed in the bill.The committee amendment in the nature ofa substitute shall be considered by title rath-er than by section. Each title shall be con-sidered as read. Points of order against thecommittee amendment in the nature of asubstitute for failure to comply with clause5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclu-sion of consideration of the bill for amend-ment the Committee shall rise and reportthe bill to the House with such amendmentsas may have been adopted. Any Member maydemand a separate vote in the House on anyamendment adopted in the Committee of theWhole to the bill or to the committeeamendment in the nature of a substitute.The previous question shall be considered asordered on the bill and amendments theretoto final passage without intervening motionexcept one motion to recommit with or with-out instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms.KAPTUR). The gentleman from Ten-nessee [Mr. GORDON] is recognized for 1hour.

Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, forpurposes of debate only I yield the cus-tomary 30 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Tennessee [Mr. QUILLEN], pendingwhich I yield myself such time as Imay consume. During consideration ofthis resolution, all time yielded is forthe purposes of debate only.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution206 provides an open rule for the con-sideration of H.R. 2150 the Coast Guardauthorization bill for fiscal year 1994.

The resolution waives points of orderagainst the committee substitute nowprinted in the bill as original text forfailure to comply with clause 5(A) ofrule XXI.

Under this rule any Member mayoffer a germane amendment to the billwhich will be debated under the 5-minute rule.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2150 authorizes $3.6billion in funding for the U.S. CoastGuard for fiscal year 1994. The CoastGuard is an extremely valuable assetto our country as the safety regulatorand enforcer of our country's coastlineand waterways.

This bill authorizes funding for sev-eral important programs and projectscarried out by the Coast Guard. Fundsare authorized for the alteration andremoval of bridges that pose a threatto navigation and for the continued up-dating of the buoy tender fleet.

Funding is also authorized for thecleanup of several Coast Guard stationsaround the country. This funding is es-sential to the continued effort to cleanup these sites which have suffered dam-age from years of neglect.

Mr. Speaker, the men and women ofthe Coast Guard perform many impor-tant functions for our country. H.R.2150 will allow them to continue theirimportant work.

I urge adoption of this resolution andthe bill and reserve the balance of mytime and yield to the gentleman fromTennessee [Mr. QUILLEN] for the pur-poses of debate only.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the bal-ance of my time.

Mr. QUILLEN. Madam Speaker, Iyield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Madam Speaker, the able gentlemanfrom Tennessee [Mr. GORDON] has ex-plained the provisions of the rule. Isupport it, because it is an open rule.

The committee has done an outstand-ing job on the Coast Guard. We know itis our second defense. They do a tre-mendously good job, not only wherethey serve, but also when they arecalled to serve with additional duties.

Madam Speaker, the U.S. CoastGuard is the oldest, the smallest of allmilitary services, but its contributionsto our country are significant and theyare legend. The Coast Guard is respon-sible for passenger and vessel safety atsea, enforcement of our maritime laws,protection of the maritime environ-ment, oil spill response, and the safetyand security of ports and waterways inthe United States.

Additionally, the Coast Guard playsa primary role in drug interdiction bystopping illegal drugs from reachingthe shore. That duty is tremendous.They have been called on in recentyears to help in this regard.

I think the Coast Guard is tremen-dously underfunded. We should bolstertheir service, because, really, it is thedefense, of this Nation, and comparedwith the maritime industry and ourmaritime fleet, we must not forget ei-ther.

I support the rule. I ask for its adop-tion.

I include for the RECORD documenta-tion regarding open versus restrictiverules in the 103d Congress:

OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.

Open rules2

RestrictiveConTotal rules rules

3

Congress (years) granted Num-ber Percent um- Percent

ber

95th (1977-78) ..............96th (1979-80) ..............

211 179 85 32 15214 161 75 53 25

17928

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEOPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.- OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.-

Continued Continued

Open rules2

Restrictive

ore Total rules rulesCongress (years) granted Num- Percent Num

ber Percent er Percentber

97th (1981-82) .............. 120 90 75 30 2598th (1983-84) .............. 155 105 68 50 3299th (1985-86) ............. 115 65 57 50 43100th (1987-88) ............ 123 66 54 57 46101st (1989-90) ............ 104 47 45 57 55102d (1991-92) ............. 109 37 34 72 66

Open rules2 Restrictive

Coness (years) Total rles rulesCongress (year) R um-

granted Percent Num- Percentbr er Percenther

103d (1993-94) ............. 31 9 29 22 71

'Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported fromthe Rules Committee which provide for the initial consideration of legisla-tion, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of order.Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.

1792920pen rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane

amendment to a measure so long as it is otherwise in compliance with therules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a per-cent of total rules granted.

3Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments whichcan be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closedrules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for consider-ation in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The par-enthetical percentages are restrictive rules as a percent of total rules grant-ed.

Sources: "Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities," 95th-102d Cong. "Notices of Action Taken," Committee on Rules, 103d Cong.,through July 30, 1993.

OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES-103D CONG.

Rule number, date reported Rule type Bill number and subject Amendments submit- Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date

H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993 ......................... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical leave ...................................................... 30 (0-5; R-25) .......... 3 (-0; R-3) .................................... P: 246-176. A 259-164. (Feb. 3, 1993).H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993 ......................... MC H.R. 2: National Voter Registration Act ............................................. 19 (D-; R-18) .......... (-0;; R-) ................................... PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4, 1993).H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993 ..................... C H.R. 920: Unemployment compensation ............................................. 7 (-2; R-5) .............. 0 (-0; R-) .................................... PQ: 243-172. A 237-178. (Feb. 24, 1993).H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993 ....................... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments ........................................................ 9 (D-; R-8) .............. 3 ( ; R-3) .................................... PQ: 248-166. A 249-163. (Mar. 3, 1993).H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993 ....................... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 .............................................. 13 (D-4; R-9) ............ 8 (-3; R-5) .................................... PQ: 247-170. 248-170. (Mar. 10, 1993).H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993 ..................... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency Supplemental Approp ..................................... 37 (D-8; R-29) .......... 1 (not submitted) (D-1 R-0) .......... A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993 ..................... MC H. Cong. Res. 64: Budget resolution .................................... 14 (0-2; R-12) .......... 4 (1-D not submitted (D-2; R-2) ... PQ: 250-172. A. 251-172. (Mar. 18, 1993).H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993 ..................... MC H.R. 670: Family planning amendments ............................................ 20 (-8; R-12) .......... 9 (D-4; R-5) .................................... PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar. 24, 1993).H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993 ..................... C H.R. 1430: Increase public debt limit ................................................ (D-1; R-5) .............. (-0; R-) .................................... PQ: 244-168. A 242-170. (Apr. 1, 1993).H. Res. 149, Apr. 1, 1993 ....................... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited Rescission Act of 1993 ............................. 8 (D-1; R-7) .............. 3 (0-1; R-2) .................................... A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993. ....................... 0 H.R. 820: National Competitiveness Act ............................................ NA ............................... NA ..................................................... A Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993 ..................... 0 H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act of 1993 .............................................. NA ............................... A ..................................................... A Voice Vote. (May 20 1993).H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993 ...................... 0 H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel Safety Act ............................................ NA ............................... NA ... .................................................. A 308-0. (May 24, 1993).H. Res. 173, May 18, 1993 ...................... MC SJ. Res. 45: U.S. Forces in Somalia .................................................. 6 (D-1; R-5) .............. 6 (-1; R-5) .................................... A Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993 ...................... 0 H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental Appropriations ...................................... NA ............................... NA ..................................................... A 251-174. (May 26, 1993).H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993 ...................... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget reconciliation ........................................ 51 (-19; R-32) ........ 8 (D-7; R-l) .................................... PQ: 252-178. A 236-194. (May 27, 1993).H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993 ....................... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch appropriations ................................... 50 (-6; R-44) .......... 6 (D-3; R-3) .................................... P: 240-177. A: 226-185. ne 10, 1993).H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993 ..................... 0 H.R. 2200: NASA authorization ........................................................... NA ............................... NA ..................................................... A Voice Vote. une 14, 1993).H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993 ..................... MC H.R. 5: Striker Replacement .... . ......... .. ........ ...... ........... 7 (D-4; R-3) .............. 2 (0-1; R-l) .................................... A 244-176. (June 15, 1993).H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993 ..................... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. H.R. 2404: Foreign aid ...................... 53 (D-20; R-33) ........ 27 (-12; R-15) .............................. A 294-129. (June 16, 1993).H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993 ..................... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of "Fast Track" ........................................................ ............................... A ................................................... A Voice Vote. une 22, 1993).H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993 ..................... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign Operations appropriations ................................... 33 (-1; R-22) ........ 5 (D-1; R-4) .................................... A 263-160. (June 17, 1993).H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993 ..................... 0 H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal appropriations ........................................ NA ............................... NA ..................................................... A Voice Vote. une 17. 1993).H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993 ..................... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and water appropriations ..................................... NA ............................... NA ................................................... A Voice Vote. une 23, 1993).H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993 ..................... 0 H.R. 2150: Coast Guard authorization ............................................... NA ............................... NA ...........................................H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993 ...................... MO H.R. 2010: National Service Trust Act ............................................... NA ............................... NA ..................................................... A 261-164. (July 21, 1993).H. Res. 218, July 20, 1993 ...................... 0 H.R. 2530: BLM authorization, fiscal year 1994-95 ......................... NA ............................... NA ...........................................H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993 ...................... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster assistance supplemental ................................... 14 (D-8; R-6) ............ 2 (D-2; R-) .................................... PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July 22, 1993).H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993 ...................... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster assistance supplemental ................................... 15 (D-8; R-7) ............ 2 (D-2; R-O) .................................... A: 224-205. (uly 27, 1993).H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993 ...................... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence Authorization Act fiscal year 1994 ............... NA ............................... NA .....................................................H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993 ...................... 0 H.R. 1964: Maritime Administrative authorization ............................. NA ............................... NA ..................................................... A Voice Vote. uly 29, 1993)

Note.-Code: C-closed; MC-modified closed; MO-modified open; 0-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.

Madam Speaker, I have no further re-quests for time, and I yield back thebalance of my time.

Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, Iyield back the balance of my time, andI move the previous question on theresolution.

The previous question was ordered.The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the resolution.The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced thatthe ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. QUILLEN. Madam Speaker, I ob-ject to the vote on the ground that aquorum is not present and make thepoint of order that a quorum is notpresent.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-dently a quorum is not present.

The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-sent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic de-vice, and there were-yeas 401, nays 0,not voting 33, as follows:

[Roll No. 387]

AbercrombieAckermanAllardAndrews (ME)Andrews (NJ)Andrews (TX)ApplegateArcherArmeyBacchus (FL)

YEAS-401

Bachus (AL)BaeslerBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarcaBarciaBarlowBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)

BartlettBartonBecerraBeilensonBentleyBereuterBevillBilbrayBilirakisBishop

BlackwellBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrooksBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)BryantBunningBurtonBuyerByrneCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCantwellCardinCarrCastleClaytonClementClingerClyburnCobleCollins (CA)Collins (IL)Collins (MI)CombestConditConyersCooperCoppersmithCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCrane

CunninghamDannerDardende la GarzaDealDeFazioDeLauroDeLayDellumsDerrickDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDooleyDoolittleDornanDreierDuncanDunnDurbinEdwards (CA)Edwards (TX)EmersonEngelEnglish (AZ)English (OK)EshooEvansEverettEwingFarrFawellFazioFields (LA)Fields (TX)FilnerFingerhutFishFogliettaFord (MI)Ford (TN)Frank (MA)Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)FurseGalloGejdensonGekasGephardtGerenGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGingrichGlickmanGonzalezGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGramsGrandyGreenGreenwoodGundersonGutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamburgHamiltonHancockHarmanHastertHastingsHayesHefleyHefnerHergerHilliardHincheyHoaglandHobsonHochbruecknerHoekstraHokeHoldenHornHoughton

HoyerHuffingtonHughesHunterHutchinsonHuttoHydeInglisInsleeIstookJacobsJohnson (CT)Johnson (GA)Johnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJohnstonKanjorskiKapturKasichKennedyKennellyKildeeKimKingKingstonKleczkaKleinKlinkKlugKnollenbergKopetskiKreidlerKylLaFalceLambertLantosLaRoccoLaughlinLeachLehmanLevinLevyLewis (CA)Lewis (FL)Lewis (GA)

LightfootLinderLivingstonLongLoweyMachtleyMaloneyMannMantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMazzoliMcCandlessMcCloskeyMcCollumMcCreryMcCurdyMcDermottMcHaleMcHughMcKeonMcMillanMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMeyersMfumeMicaMichelMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MinetaMingeMinkMolinariMollohanMontgomeryMoorheadMoranMorellaMurphyMurthaMyersNadler

NatcherNeal (MA)NussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOrtonOwensOxlcyPalloneParkerPastorPaxonPayne(NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPennyPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPickettPicklePomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPoshardPrice (NC)QuillenQuinnRahallRamstadRangelRavenelReedRegulaReynoldsRichardsonRobertsRoomerRogersRohrabacherRoseRostenkowskiRoth

July 30, 1993

17930RoukemaRowlandRoybal-AllardRoyceRushSaboSandersSangmeisterSantorumSarpaliusSawyerSaxtonSchaeferSchenkSchiffSchroederSchumerScottSensenbrennerSerranoSharpShawShaysShepherdShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlatterySlaughterSmith (IA)

BatemanBermanChapmanClayColemanCrapoFlakeFowlerFrostGalleglyHansenHenry

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSESmith (MI) TownsSmith (NJ) TraficantSmith (OR) TuckerSmith (TX) UnsoeldSnowe UptonSpence ValentineSpratt VelazquezStark VentoStearns ViscloskyStenholm VolkmerStokes VucanovichStrickland WalkerStudds WalshStump WatersStupak WattSundquist WaxmanSwett WeldonSwift WheatSynar WhittenTalent WilliamsTanner WilsonTauzin WiseTaylor (MS) WolfTaylor (NC) WoolseyTejeda WydenThomas (CA) WynnThomas (WY) YatesThompson Young (AK)Thornton Young (FL)Thurman ZeliffTorkildsen ZimmerTorres

NOT VOTING-33

InhofeJeffersonKolbeLancasterLazioLipinskiLloydMargolies-

MezvinskyMatsuiMcDadeMcInnis

McKinneyMoakleyNeal (NC)PackardPryce (OH)RidgeRos-LehtinenSolomonTorricelliWashington

[ 1117

Messrs. BEREUTER, BILIRAKIS, andHERGER changed their vote from"nay" to "yea."

So the resolution was agreed to.The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I returned to mydistrict to be present at the birth of my secondchild.

Had I been present, I would have voted"aye" on rollcall 387.

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ONARMED SERVICES TO FILE RE-PORT ON H.R. 2401, NATIONALDEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACTFOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, Iask unanimous consent that the Com-mittee on Armed Services may haveuntil midnight tonight to file a reporton the bill, H.R. 2401, the National De-fense Authorization Act for fiscal year1994.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms.KAPTUR). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Mis-sissippi?

There was no objection.

0 1120

PROCEDURES PERTAINING TOAMENDMENTS TO THE DOD AU-THORIZATION BILL

(Mr. GORDON asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I riseto explain the Committee on Rules'plans for the DOD authorization bill.The committee will meet on Monday,August 2, at 1:30 p.m. All Members in-terested in offering amendments to theDOD bill should bring their amend-ments to the Rules Committee by Mon-day noon.

It is our intention to complete alltestimony on the bill and amendmentsby close of business Monday. However,we do not plan to propose a rule, onthat day, covering the entire amend-ment process.

On Monday, August 2, the committeeplans to report a rule covering onlygeneral debate and all amendments re-lating to the issue of gays in the mili-tary. We will meet again to report an-other rule later.

Mr. Speaker, I make this statementonly to keep my colleagues informed.In summary, all amendments to theDOD bill are due at the Rules Commit-tee offices by noon on Monday, August2. The committee will take all testi-mony on that day and report a rulecovering only general debate and theissue of gays in the military. I appre-ciate my colleagues' help.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gen-tleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I appre-ciate the gentleman from the Commit-tee on Rules yielding to me on thispoint.

We have to have all amendments inon all aspects of the defense authoriza-tion bill by noon on Monday, eventhough the rule, the initial rule, isonly going to be regarding general de-bate and on the gays-in-the-militaryissue; is that correct?

Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, thegentleman is correct.

Mr. DICKS. And all of the testimonyon all of the amendments will be takenon Monday afternoon for the entire billor just on the general debate and gaysin the military?

Mr. GORDON. On the entire bill. It isour expectation that there will prob-ably be a number of amendments, thatthe testimony will run late, particu-larly that day, and so it would be ourexpectation, so that we can get startedpromptly, to go ahead and have a rule,bifurcated rule, the first part being ongeneral debate and the issue of gays inthe military, and then we will try toassimilate the other amendments,which are very many in this case, andhave a second rule so we can completethe remaining part of this bill.

July 30, 1993Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I appre-

ciate the gentleman for having yieldedto me.

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATIONACT OF 1993

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms.KAPTUR). Pursuant to House Resolu-tion 206 and rule XXIII, the Chair de-clares the House in the Committee ofthe Whole House on the State of theUnion for the consideration of the bill,H.R. 2150.

O 1125IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly, the House resolved it-self into the Committee of the WholeHouse on the State of the Union for theconsideration of the bill (H.R. 2150) toauthorize appropriations for fiscal year1994 for the U.S. Coast Guard, and forother purposes, with Mr. DARDEN in thechair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

rule, the bill is considered as havingbeen read the first time.

Under the rule, the gentleman fromMassachusetts [Mr. STUDDS] will berecognized for 30 minutes, and the gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. FIELDS] will berecognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts [Mr. STUDDS].

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldmyself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I know Members areanxious to know the likely length oftime for this debate. Let me just saythat with one possible exception we arenot aware of any controversial amend-ments, and, therefore, if Members areable to resist the temptation to requestvotes on matters that are without con-troversy, there is no reason that wecannot proceed expeditiously to con-clude this bill and to allow airplanes tobe caught.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strongsupport of H.R. 2150, the Coast GuardAuthorization Act of 1993. This legisla-tion authorizes approximately $3.6 bil-lion for the Coast Guard in fiscal year1994, a level consistent with the Presi-dent's fiscal year 1994 request.

This is a very reasonable bill that,while lean, will provide the CoastGuard with adequate resources to dothis job. The majority of the funds au-thorized are for day-to-day operatingexpenses-to keep boats running,planes flying, and people paid. To helpkeep pace with inflation, we have rec-ommended a modest 2-percent increaseover last year's appropriation.

The Coast Guard's budget reflectsour changing times by shifting re-sources to strike a more balanced ap-proach among its many missions. Oneof the areas that will receive more at-tention is law enforcement.

As a New Englander, I know all toowell the importance of fisheries law en-forcement, especially in the Northeast,


where traditional stocks have dwindledto unacceptably low levels. Enforce-ment of new fisheries managementplans will be critical to their success.To carry out this task, the Coast Guardhas decided to expand a very innova-tive training program initiated on CapeCod. This program provides regionallytargeted fisheries law enforcementtraining, and actively solicits the ad-vice and expertise of the fishing indus-try.

The other major component of thisbill is the acquisition, construction,and improvement [AC&I] account.These AC&I funds will allow the CoastGuard to replace its fleet of aging buoytenders-many of which are over 50years old-continue expansion of itsvessel traffic service system, as well asbuild child day-care centers and im-prove living conditions for Coast Guardpersonnel by renovating antiquatedhousing.

In real terms, AC&I has steadily de-creased over the years. If this down-ward trend continues, we could befaced with a very serious Coast Guardinfrastructure problem by the end ofthe decade-with ships and aircraft lit-erally unfit and unsafe to get under-way. Further cuts to this accountwould be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

One need not look further than thedaily headlines to see how relevant andimportant today's Coast Guard is.Whether helping the tragic victims ofthe floods in the Midwest, or rescuingunfortunate immigrants from miser-able conditions on unsafe ships, theCoast Guard has never been busier-ormore necessary.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2150 recognizesthe invaluable role the Coast Guardplays in saving lives and preventingtragedies of all kinds at sea. I urge mycolleagues' support of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

0 1130

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes$3.1 billion for the Coast Guard for fis-cal year 1994, as requested by the ad-ministration, with an additional $8.4million for certain projects.

Every year, when we consider theCoast Guard authorization bill we hearMembers sing high praises for the ex-cellent work of this outstanding orga-nization. Those of us on the MerchantMarine and Fisheries Committee,which has jurisdiction over most of thelaws the Coast Guard enforces, espe-cially appreciate the Coast Guard forits work in search and rescue, oilspillcleanup, and drug interdiction.

Most people don't know, however,that the multimissions of the CoastGuard take it far from the high seas toinland States such as Missouri, Arkan-sas, and Illinois. This week found the

Coast Guard rescuing flood victimsalong the Mississippi and Missouri Riv-ers, using reservists and 17-foot utilityboats. For a "coastie," it was all in aday's work.

As a fiscal conservative, I believe weshould make each Government dollarcount, and the Coast Guard is one ofthose Federal agencies that does justthat. The funding levels for the CoastGuard in this bill are reasonable andresponsible. H.R. 2150 provides criticalfunding for Coast Guard operations tointerdict drug smugglers and illegalalien smugglers, to prevent and cleanup oilspills on our Nation's coastlines,and provide emergency search and res-cue services on our waterways.

I am especially pleased that the billcontinues acquisition of the vessel traf-fic service [VTS] system in Port Ar-thur, TX, and begins acquisition of aVTS system in Corpus Christi, TX.H.R. 2150 also authorizes funds to addPort Arthur, TX, to the 20 sites aroundthe country scheduled to receive pre-positioned oilspill equipment to re-spond to oilspill emergencies.

This authorization process is an im-portant step. However, I also look for-ward to working with my colleagues onthe Appropriations Committee to en-sure that the Coast Guard receives ade-quate funding for the next fiscal year.

I would just like to add that this billis the product of a bipartisan effort bythe members of the Merchant Marineand Fisheries Committee and that it issupported by our Members from bothsides of the aisle.

I support H.R. 2150 and urge my col-leagues to vote in favor of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balanceof my time.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5minutes to the distinguished chairmanof the subcommittee, the' gentlemanfrom Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN].

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I risetoday as chairman of the Subcommit-tee on Coast Guard and Navigation insupport of the Coast Guard and in sup-port of H.R. 2150, the Coast Guard Au-thorization Act of 1993.

The Committee on Merchant Marineand Fisheries developed H.R. 2150 in abipartisan manner that fully author-izes the administration's austere budg-et request to fund Coast Guard in fiscalyear 1994. I would like to recognize thecontributions of Chairman STUDDS,JACK FIELDS, our ranking full commit-tee member, and HOWARD COBLE, ourranking subcommittee member.

Before talking about the bill, I wouldlike to tell you about the CoastGuard's activities over the last year.

Last summer, Hurricanes Andrewand Iniki wrecked havoc across Louisi-ana, Florida, and Hawaii. Last winter,flood waters devastated southern Cali-fornia while the infamous storm of thecentury devastated the gulf and eastcoasts. In each case the Coast Guardwas one of the first Federal agencies to

be on the scene, saving lives and pro-tecting property at record levels.

In January we feared that up to100,000 Haitians might risk their livesaboard unseaworthy boats attemptingthe 600-mile voyage to Florida. I amconfident that the Coast Guard's hu-manitarian efforts during OperationAble Manner saved countless Haitianlives. Today, those cutters continue topatrol off Haiti. It is time to find solu-tions to the problems in Haiti; to endthe human suffering; and to allow theCoast Guard to resume its routine op-erations.

This summer, the Coast Guardstepped up its efforts to maintain thesecurity of our borders from illegal mi-gration. The increase of smuggled mi-grants from China is a situation thatthe Coast Guard expects to persist forsome time to come. We must ensurethat the Coast Guard has the resourcesand guidance it needs to protect ourNation's maritime borders.

Today the Coast Guard continues tobe the lead Federal agency providingdirect assistance to those stranded bythe relentless flood waters in the Mid-west. The Coast Guard has recalledover 225 reservists and devoted everyavailable resource to the flood relief ef-fort.

For the past few years, Congress hascalled upon the Coast Guard to aggres-sively protect the marine environment.The Coast Guard is responding. CoastGuard marine safety inspectors are as-serting their authority to prevent un-safe foreign vessels from plying U.S.waters. The Coast Guard has taken uni-lateral action to block unsafe, environ-mentally hazardous tankers from leav-ing U.S. ports. Unsafe vessels will notcontinue to engage in trade with theUnited States if they pose a threat topublic safety and the marine environ-ment.

I have described a few of the CoastGuard's special operations of the lastyear. But the Coast Guard serves usevery day. In fact, on the average daythe Coast Guard will:

Save 12 lives and assist 315 people atsea;

Save $2 million in property;Conduct 144 search-and-rescue mis-

sions;Respond to 23 oil or hazardous chemi-

cal spills;Inspect 64 commercial vessels;Investigate 17 marine accidents;Service 150 buoys and lighthouses;Seize 318 pounds of marijuana and 253

pounds of cocaine and interdict 112 ille-gal migrants.

That is quite a day. We get all thisand more from a service of less than40,000 dedicated men and women whoproudly wear the Coast Guard uniform.We have an obligation to provide themwith the support they need to do thejobs that we all count on.

H.R. 2150 authorizes a budget requestthat will merely allow the Coast Guard

July 30, 1993 17931

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 30, 1993to maintain its current level of serv-ices. In fact, the Coast Guard has pro-posed to cut $42 million in operatingexpenses and to cut $9 million from thereserve training account. In manycases, these cutbacks will be painful.

H.R. 2150 authorizes a total of $3.6billion for the Coast Guard in fiscalyear 1994-including $2.6 billion for op-erating expenses, $418 million for ac-quisition, construction, and improve-ment [AC&I] of ships, planes, and shorefacilities, $23 million for environ-mental restoration of contaminated fa-cilities, $13 million for bridge alter-ations, and $549 million for retired pay.

H.R. 2150 authorizes funds to con-tinue an initiative authorized by theOil Pollution Act of 1990 to safeguardour busiest and most dangerous portswith state-of-the-art vessel trafficservices. It also authorizes the replace-ment of the Nation's fleet of 50-year-old buoy tenders used to mark thethousands of channels in our Nation'swaterways. These new buoy tenderswill double as oil skimmers and ensurethat we are prepared to respond to oil-spills in the future. Both of these ini-tiatives were highlighted as nationalpriorities in the administration's Vi-sion of Change for America document.

H.R. 2150 is supported by the adminis-tration. It is the result of a truly bipar-tisan effort by the members of ourcommittee. H.R. 2150 recognizes the in-credible contributions that the CoastGuard makes to this country everyday. Support the Coast Guard. SupportH.R. 2150.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,I yield such time as he may consume toour outstanding ranking minoritymember of the Subcommittee on CoastGuard and Navigation, the gentlemanfrom North Carolina [Mr. COBLE].

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, let methank the gentleman for yielding methis time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise insupport of the Coast Guard Authoriza-tion Act of 1993 (H.R. 2150) which willauthorize appropriations for the U.S.Coast Guard during fiscal year 1994.

I believe that the levels of fundingfor the Coast Guard's operating ex-penses and its acquisition, construc-tion, and improvement account are ap-propriate during these times of tightbudgets. With the ever expanding du-ties of the Coast Guard, I believe thatthe small funding increases in H.R. 2150are completely justifiable. As always,the Coast Guard will have to stretchits resources. However, the authoriza-tion bill's funding levels should keepthe Coast Guard from falling behind inits important missions of search andrescue, environmental protection, anddrug interdiction.

I hope that my colleagues have takentime to read and see the recent pressreports about the Coast Guard's tire-less efforts to assist and rescue peoplewho have been caught in the terrible

Midwest flood. I want to thank themen and women of the Coast Guard andthe Coast Guard Reserve who have lefttheir own families and property to pro-vide lifesaving assistance to otherAmericans. The flood clearly illus-trates that the Coast Guard helps toprotect all parts of our country notjust the coastal United States.

The Coast Guard probably more ver-satile than any of the five armed serv-ices that serve our country.

All the Coast Guard missions, wheth-er directed toward rescuing distressedmariners, interdicting drug smugglers,opening frozen rivers and channels tocommerce, conducting port securityoperations or environmental clean-up,contribute directly to the Nation's eco-nomic, social, environmental, and mili-tary security. I strongly believe thatthe Coast Guard provides our Nationwith one of the best values in the Fed-eral budget.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favorof H.R. 2150.

O 1140Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2

minutes to the distinguished gentle-woman from California [Ms. SCHENK].

Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I risetoday in support of the Coast GuardAuthorization Act of 1993. As a Memberfrom a city that is home to three majorCoast Guard installations, I have longrecognized the essential work this serv-ice performs along our coasts and onthe high seas.

Most recently, the Nation watchedwhile Coast Guard units from myhometown of San Diego and elsewhereinterdicted three vessels intent onsmuggling illegal Chinese aliens intothe United States through Mexico.Last July 3, a Falcon jet from Air Sta-tion San Diego sighted two vessels en-gaged in this trade in human life offthe Mexican coast. The next day an-other ship was located. In all, 8 CoastGuard cutters and 3 San Diego-basedpatrol boats intercepted these vesselsresulting in the interdiction of 695 ille-gal migrants, who were returned toChina. In the end, the 3 vessels wereseized and 37 smugglers are under ar-rest in Mexico. That dramatic incidentheld the Nation's attention; however,Mr. Chairman, what was less noticedwas the humanitarian aid provided tothese migrants by the Coast Guard.During this 13-day operation, the CoastGuard transported 126 people in need ofmedical care from these vessels. Theservice also provided these distressedvessels with emergency equipment,medical supplies, and food.

This operation is a wonderful exam-ple of the Coast Guard accomplishingits dual mission of protecting ourcoasts-and enforcing our laws-whilealso providing life-saving services topeople in distress.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2150 authorizes$3.6 billion for Coast Guard activities.

These funds will pay for the wide vari-ety of essential services the CoastGuard provides our Nation, includingsearch and rescue marine safety, aidsto navigation, enforcement of laws andtreaties, marine environmental protec-tion, and many others. I doubt thatany money our Government spendscould be better spent. I support thislegislation and urge my colleagues tosupport it.

I want to take a little time, Mr.Chairman, to talk about the commend-able service provided by San Diego'sCoast Guard commands. As I men-tioned, San Diego has three major com-mands, the Group/Air Station SanDiego, the Marine Safety Office SanDiego, and the Pacific Area TacticalLaw Enforcement team.

GROUP/AIR STATION SAN DIEGOThe Group/Air Station is located ad-

jacent to Lindbergh Field on San DiegoBay. The command comprises 234 ac-tive duty members, 260 part-time orReserve members, and approximately300 volunteer civilian auxiliaries. Dur-ing fiscal 1992, the Group/Air Stationresponded to 727 search and rescuecases. These resulted in 43 lives saved,925 persons assisted, $6.49 million inproperty saved and $10.6 million inproperty assisted. This was done on anannual budget of $1 million.

For example, during tropical stormDarby in July, 1992, the sailing vesselHosannah was reported taking on waterand in imminent danger of sinking 450miles southwest of San Diego. Two HU-25A Falcon jets were launched in re-sponse. Despite extremely adverseweather, the aircraft successfullydropped three dewatering pumps, aportable radio, a liferaft, and twodatum marker buoys to the vessel. Thepumps enabled the ship to stay afloatuntil the arrival of a Coast Guard highendurance cutter. The 45-foot ketchand its crew of five were saved.

In another example, during January1993, southern California receivedrecord rainfall resulting in severeflooding, loss of life, and extensiveproperty damage. In response, Group/Air Station San Diego flew some 45 sor-ties, saving 16 lives, and assisting inthe evacuation of over 200 people.

THE MARINE SAFETY OFFICE

The Marine Safety Office [MSO] iscolocated with the Group/Air Station.Its detail consists of 24 active duty and41 Reserve personnel. The MSO's pri-mary missions are commercial vesselsafety and port and environmentalsafety.

Commercial vessel safety responsibil-ities include inspecting and certifyingU.S. flag merchant vessels, verifyingforeign flag passenger vessel compli-ance with U.S. and international stand-ards, and investigation of reports ofmarine accidents, misconduct, neg-ligence, or incompetence by merchantmariners.

Port and environmental safety re-sponsibilities include enforcement of

17932


statutes, regulations, an internationalagreements regarding port safety, portsecurity, and environmental protec-tion.

San Diego's Marine Safety Officehosted the first national pollution re-sponse exercise program drill in De-cember 1992. The exercise included over450 participants and observers. Itemstested in this exercise included theCoast Guard's new unified commandsystem of government and industry re-sponders, the United States/Mexicojoint regional response team, and localresponse strategies.THE PACIFIC AREA TACTICAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

TEAM

Sixty-two Coast Guard personnel areassigned to the Pacific area tacticallaw enforcement team [Taclet] sta-tioned at the Marine Corps recruitdepot in San Diego. Taclet's missionincludes providing 10 rapid deploymentlaw enforcement detachments whichoperate around the world. The primaryresponsibility of Taclet iscounternarcotics operations conductedfrom Navy ships in Central Americanand Caribbean waters.

Currently Taclet has two detach-ments deployed overseas. One is de-ployed to the Red Sea where it helpsenforce U.N. sanctions against Iraq.Another is deployed in the Adriatic en-forcing U.N. sanctions against theformer Republic of Yugoslavia.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the SanDiego Coast Guard station and thegood and courageous work done by ourservice people there. The funds pro-vided for in H.R. 2150 will go to con-tinuing and improving that mission,and again, I urge my colleagues to sup-port this legislation.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. GOODLING], theranking member on the Committee onEducation and Labor.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, lastyear the Coast Guard reauthorizationbill included a provision requiring theSecretary of Transportation to submita study to Congress 6 months after en-actment, May 4, 1993, on the acquisi-tion of buoy chain. In April I receiveda letter from Secretary Pefia statinghis intention to have the study deliv-ered by that date. I understand the De-partment's desire to thoroughly exam-ine the issue of the ability of U.S. buoychain manufacturers to compete forGovernment contracts, however, I hadhoped to have the results prior to theconsideration of the legislation beforeus today.

Because the Coast Guard is not boundby the same procurement policies asthe Department of Defense, U.S. manu-facturers have been virtually shut outof the market due to predatory pricingby foreign competitors and very fewU.S. manufacturers are able to regu-larly bid buoy chain solicitations. I be-lieve it is very important to carefully

examine the effect current policieshave on American manufacturers andam quite anxious to review the resultsof this study.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully requestthe assistance of the Committee onMerchant Marine and Fisheries in ex-pediting the release of this importantinformation. I would like to thankChairman STUDDS and Mr. FIELDS fortheir support in the past and verymuch look forward to working withthem in the future.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2minutes to the distinguished gen-tleman from Florida [Mr. HUTTO].

Mr. HUTTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise insupport of the Coast Guard authoriza-tion bill. As a member of the CoastGuard Subcommittee and a formerchairman in the 100th Congress, Istrongly support the many missions ofthe U.S. Coast Guard.

When we think of the U.S. CoastGuard what often comes to mind isemergency search and rescue oper-ations. The Coast Guard would indeedbe a worthy service if that were theironly mission. But that is only the be-ginning of the list. In addition tosearch and rescue efforts, our U.S.Coast Guard also performs maritimeand environmental protection law en-forcement, refugee assistance, druginterdiction, administers boating safe-ty standards, implements aids to navi-gation, and responds to oil spills andother disasters. These peacetime mis-sions have greatly expanded as our Na-tion's needs have changed.

That is only part of the story. Myservice on the Armed Services Commit-tee gives me a greater appreciation forthe fine military mission of the U.S.Coast Guard. Although the CoastGuard operates under the Departmentof Transportation, it is an armed serv-ice and has participated in every U.S.armed conflict. The Department of De-fense values the ready seagoing supportof the Coast Guard, and the U.S. Navyis perhaps one of their biggest fans.

The bill before us today authorizesthe appropriation of $3.6 billion to op-erate our U.S. Coast Guard in fiscalyear 1994. This figure represents an in-crease of 5 percent from the fiscal year1993 appropriation. The majority ofthis increase provides a much neededcost-of-living increase for those servingin our U.S. Coast Guard and I hope theappropriations which are to come willfund the Coast Guard properly.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly supportthis authorization bill and urge my col-leagues to join me and stand behindthe U.S. Coast Guard.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongsupport of H.R. 2150, the Coast Guard author-ization bill.

I want to highlight a provision in this legisla-tion relating to the icebreaker Mackinaw, avessel that is vital to commerce in the GreatLakes region. Regretfully, the Coast Guardhas recommended that the Mackinaw be de-

17933commissioned, and this legislation would pre-vent this decommissioning until a number ofimportant determinations are made regardingthe future of our icebreaking capabilities in theGreat Lakes. The legislation also authorizes$1.6 million in essential operation and mainte-nance moneys for the Mackinaw.

The Mackinaw is a unique vessel withicebreaking capabilities that cannot bematched by other vessels. The Mackinaw isthe only icebreaker on the lakes powerfulenough to reliably clear channels clogged with10- to 12-foot brash ice or 12-foot-high wind-rows. Experience has shown that bay-classtugs are ineffective when brash ice is deeperthan 3 to 4 feet. Additionally, the Mackinaw isthe only icebreaker on the lakes with enoughpower to clear ice jams that have clogged theSt. Clair River twice in the last decade andhave threatened severe flooding in other riversin the Great Lakes region.

The Mackinaw is also essential to ensuringearly and late season iron ore sailings. Mil-lions of tons of iron ore and other cargoesneed to move before April 1 and after Decem-ber 15. At stake is the efficient operation of 70percent of our Nation's steelmaking capacity.We need a vessel with the capabilities of theMackinaw to preserve timely productionschedules for Great Lakes steel producers. Tostrip the Great Lakes of its only proven ice-breaker would be tantamount to surrenderingthe Nation's industrial might to overseas pro-ducers.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legisla-tion and commend Chairman TAUZIN andChairman STUDDS for their efforts to ensurethat the cutter Mackinaw remain an active partof our icebreaking fleet.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,I have no further requests for time, andyield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yieldback the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for generaldebate has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the committeeamendment in the nature of a sub-stitute printed in the bill shall be con-sidered by titles as an original bill forthe purpose of amendment and eachtitle is considered as read.

The Clerk will designate section 1.Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent that the committeeamendment in the nature of a sub-stitute made in order as original textby the rule be printed in the RECORDand open to amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromMassachusetts?

There was no objection.The text of the committee amend-

ment in the nature of a substitute is asfollows:

H.R. 2150Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-

resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Coast GuardAuthorization Act of 1993".

July 30, 1993

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 30, 1993TITLE I-AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.Funds are authorized to be appropriated for

necessary expenses of the Coast Guard for fiscalyear 1994, as follows:

(1) For the operation and maintenance of theCoast Guard, $2,612,552,200, of which $25,000,000shall be derived from the Oil Spill LiabilityTrust Fund, and of which $35,000,000 shall beexpended from the Boat Safety Account.

(2) For the acquisition, construction, rebuild-ing, and improvement of aids to navigation,shore and offshore facilities, vessels, and air-craft, including equipment related thereto,$417,996,500, to remain available until expended,of which $23,030,000 shall be derived from theOil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

(3) For research, development, test, and eval-uation, in support of search and rescue, aids tonavigation, marine safety, marine environ-mental protection, enforcement of laws andtreaties, ice operations, and defense readiness,$25,000,000, to remain available until expended,of which $4,457,000 shall be derived from the OilSpill Liability Trust Fund.

(4) For retired pay (including the payment ofobligations otherwise chargeable to lapsed ap-propriations for this purpose), payments underthe Retired Serviceman's Family Protection andSurvivor Benefit Plans, and payments for medi-cal care of retired personnel and their depend-ents under chapter 55 of title 10, United StatesCode, $548,774,000.

(5) For alteration or removal of bridges overnavigable waters of the United States constitut-ing obstructions to navigation associated withthe Bridge Alteration Program, $12,940,000 to re-main available until expended.

(6) For environmental compliance and restora-tion at Coast Guard facilities, $23,057,000, to re-main available until expended.SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY

STRENGTH AND TRAINING.(a) As of September 30, 1994, the Coast Guard

is authorized an end-of-year strength for activeduty personnel of 39,138. The authorizedstrength does not include members of the ReadyReserve called to active duty for special or emer-gency augmentation of regular Coast Guardforces for periods of 180 days or less.

(b) For fiscal year 1994, the Coast Guard isauthorized average military training studentloads as follows:

(1) For recruit and special training, 1,986 stu-dent years.

(2) For flight training, 114 student years.(3) For professional training in military and

civilian institutions, 338 student years.(4) For officer acquisition, 955 student years.TITLE IH-PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

IMPROVEMENT

SEC. 201. CEILING ON OFFICER CORPS.Subsection (a) of section 42 of title 14, United

States Code, is amended by striking "6,000" andinserting "6,200".SEC. 202. VOLUNTEER SERVICES.

Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, isamended by-

(1) striking "and" at the end of paragraph(r);

(2) striking the period at the end of paragraph(s) and inserting "; and"; and

(3) adding at the end the following new sub-section:

"(t) Notwithstanding any other law, enterinto cooperative agreements with States, localgovernments, nongovernmental organizations,and individuals, to accept and utilize voluntaryservices for the maintenance and improvementof natural and historic resources on, or to bene-fit natural and historic research on, CoastGuard facilities, which cooperative agreementsshall each provide for the parties to contribute

funds or services on a matching basis to defraythe costs of such programs, projects, and activi-ties under the agreement.".SEC. 203. RESERVE RETENTION BOARDS.

Section 741 of title 14, United States Code, isamended-

(1) in subsection (a) in the first sentence bystriking "and are not on active duty and not onan approved list of selectees for promotion to thenext higher grade" and inserting the following:

, except those officers who-"(1) are on extended active duty;"(2) are on a list of selectees for promotion;"(3) will complete 30 years total commissioned

service by June 30th following the date that theretention board is convened; or

"(4) have reached age 59 by the date on whichthe retention board is convened";

(2) in subsection (a) by moving the second sen-tence so as to begin-

(A) immediately below paragraph (4) (asadded by paragraph (1) of this section); and

(B) flush with the left margin of the materialpreceding paragraph (1);

(3) by designating the third sentence of sub-section (a) as subsection (b) by-

(A) inserting "(b)" before "This board shall-"; and

(B) moving the third sentence so as to beginimmediately below the second sentence of sub-section (a); and

(4) by redesignating the last 2 subsections assubsections (c) and (d), respectively.SEC. 204. BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY

RECORDS DEADLINE.(a) Ten months after a complete application

for correction of military records is received bythe Board for Correction of Military Records ofthe Coast Guard, administrative remedies aredeemed to have been exhausted, and-

(1) if the Board has rendered a recommendeddecision, its recommendation shall be finalagency action and not subject to further reviewor approval within the Department of Transpor-tation; or

(2) if the Board has not rendered a rec-ommended decision, agency action is deemed tohave been unreasonably delayed or withheldand the applicant is entitled to-

(A) an order under section 706(1) of title 5,United States Code, directing final action betaken within 30 days from the date the order isentered; and

(B) from amounts appropriated to the Depart-ment of Transportation, the costs of obtainingthe order, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

(b) The 10-month deadline established in sec-tion 212 of the Coast Guard Authorization Actof 1989 (Public Law 101-225, 103 Stat. 1914) ismandatory, and applies to any applicationpending before the Board or the Secretary ofTransportation on June 12, 1990.SEC. 205. CONTINUITY OF GRADE OF ADMIRALS

AND VICE ADMIRALS.(a) Section 46(a) of title 14, United States

Code, is amended to read as follows:"(a) A Commandant who is not reappointed

shall be retired with the grade of admiral at theexpiration of the appointed term, except as pro-vided in subsection 51(d) of this title.".

(b)(1) Section 47 of title 14, United StatesCode, is amended-

(A) in the heading by striking "; retirement";(B) in subsection (a) by-(i) striking "(a)" at the beginning thereof,

and(ii) striking the last sentence and inserting the

following: "The appointment and grade of aVice Commandant shall be effective on the datethe officer assumes that duty, and shall termi-nate on the date the officer is detached fromthat duty, except as provided in subsection 51(d)of this title."; and

(C) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).

(2) The table of sections at the beginning ofchapter 3 of title 14, United States Code, isamended by striking the item relating to section47 and inserting the following:

"47. Vice Commandant; assignment.".

(c) Section 50(b) of title 14, United StatesCode, is amended by striking the last sentenceand inserting "The appointment and grade ofan area commander shall be effective on thedate the officer assumes that duty, and shallterminate on the date the officer is detachedfrom that duty, except as provided in subsection51(d) of this title.".

(d) Section 51 of title 14, United States Code,is amended by adding at the end the followingnew subsection:

"(d) An officer serving in the grade of admiralor vice admiral shall continue to hold thatgrade-

"(1) while being processed for physical dis-ability retirement, beginning on the day of theprocessing and ending on the day that officer isretired, but not for more than 180 days; and

"(2) while awaiting retirement, beginning onthe day that officer is relieved from the positionof Commandant, Vice Commandant, Area Com-mander, or Chief of Staff and ending on the daybefore the officer's retirement, but not for morethan 60 days.".SEC. 206. CHIEF OF STAFF.

(a) Section 41a(b) of title 14, United StatesCode, is amended by striking ", except that therear admiral serving as Chief of Staff shall bethe senior rear admiral for all purposes otherthan pay" at the end of the second sentence.

(b)(1) Title 14, United States Code, is amendedby inserting after section 50 the following newsection:

""50a. Chief of Staff

"(a) The President may appoint, by and withthe advice and consent of the Senate, a Chief ofStaff of the Coast Guard who shall rank nextafter the area commanders and who shall per-form duties as prescribed by the Commandant.The Chief of Staff shall be appointed from theofficers on the active duty promotion list servingabove the grade of captain. The Commandantshall make recommendations for the appoint-ment.

"(b) The Chief of Staff shall have the grade ofvice admiral with the pay and allowances ofthat grade. The appointment and grade of theChief of Staff shall be effective on the date theofficer assumes that duty, and shall terminateon the date the officer is detached from thatduty, except as provided in section 51(d) of thistitle.".

(2) The table of sections at the beginning ofchapter 3 of title 14, United States Code, isamended by inserting after the item relating tosection 50 the following:

"50a. Chief of Staff.".

(c) Section 51 of title 14, United States Code,is amended-

(1) in subsection (a) by striking "as Com-mander, Atlantic Area, or Commander, PacificArea" and inserting "in the grade of vice admi-ral"; and

(2) in subsection (b) by striking "as Com-mander, Atlantic Area, or Commander, PacificArea" and inserting "in the grade of vice admi-ral".

(d) Section 290 of title 14, United States Code,is amended-

(1) in subsection (a) by striking "or in the po-sition of Chief of Staff" in the second sentence;

(2) in subsection (f)(1) by striking "Chief ofStaff or"; and

(3) in subsection (f)(2) by striking "Chief ofStaff or".

17934

July 30, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSETITLE III-MISCELLANEOUS SECTIONS

SEC. 301. NORTH ATLANTIC ROUTES.Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of June 25, 1936 (49

Stat. 1922, 46 App. U.S.C. 738b and 738d), are re-pealed.SEC. 302. COAST GUARD FAMILY HOUSING.

(a) IN GENERAL.-Chapter 17 of title 14, Unit-ed States Code, is amended by adding at the endthe following new section:"§670. Procurement authority for family hous-

ing"(a) The Secretary is authorized-"(1) to acquire, subject to the availability of

appropriations sufficient to cover its full obliga-tions, real property or interests therein by pur-chase, lease for a term not to exceed 5 years, orotherwise, for use as Coast Guard family hous-ing units, including the acquisition of con-dominium units, which may include the obliga-tion to pay maintenance, repair, and other con-dominium-related fees; and

"(2) to dispose of by sale, lease, or otherwise,any real property or interest therein used forCoast Guard family housing units for adequateconsideration.

"(b)(1) For the purposes of this section, amultiyear contract is a contract to lease CoastGuard family housing units for at least one, butnot more than 5, fiscal years.

"(2) The Secretary may enter into multiyearcontracts under subsection (a) of this sectionwhenever the Coast Guard finds that-

"(A) the use of a contract will promote the ef-ficiency of the Coast Guard family housing pro-gram and will result in reduced total costs underthe contract; and

"(B) there are realistic estimates of both thecost of the contract and the anticipated costavoidance through the use of a multiyear con-tract.

"(3) A multiyear contract authorized undersubsection (a) of this section shall contain can-cellation and termination provisions to the ex-tent necessary to protect the best interests of theUnited States, and may include consideration ofboth recurring and nonrecurring costs. The con-tract may provide for a cancellation payment tobe made. Amounts that were originally obligatedfor the cost of the contract may be used for can-cellation or termination costs.".

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sec-tions at the beginning of chapter 17, UnitedStates Code, is amended by adding at the endthe following:"670. Procurement authority for family hous-

ing.".SEC. 303. AIR STATION CAPE COD IMPROVE-

MENTS.(a) IN GENERAL.-Chapter 17 of title 14, Unit-

ed States Code, is amended by adding after sec-tion 670 (as added by section 302 of this Act) thefollowing new section:

"§6 7

1. Air Station Cape Cod improvements"The Secretary may expend funds for the re-

pair, improvement, restoration, or replacementof those federally or nonfederally owned sup-port buildings, including appurtenances, whichare on leased or permitted real property con-stituting Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod, lo-cated on Massachusetts Military Reservation,Cape Cod, Massachusetts.".

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sec-tions at the beginning of chapter 17, UnitedStates Code, is amended by adding after theitem relating to section 670 (as added by section302 of this Act) the following:"671. Air Station Cape Cod improvements.".SEC. 304. LONG-TERM LEASE AUTHORITY FOR

AIDS TO NAVIGATION.(a) Chapter 17 of title 14, United States Code,

is amended by adding after section 671 (asadded by section 303 of this Act) the followingnew section:

"§672. Long-term lease authority for naviga-tion and communications systems sites"(a) The Secretary is authorized, subject to

the availability of appropriations, to enter intolease agreements to acquire real property or in-terests therein for a term not to exceed 20 years,inclusive of any automatic renewal clauses, foraids to navigation (hereafter in this section re-ferred to as 'ATON') sites, vessel traffic service(hereafter in this section referred to as 'VTS')sensor sites, or National Distress System (here-after in this section referred to as 'NDS') highlevel antenna sites. These lease agreements shallinclude cancellation and termination provisionsto the extent necessary to protect the best inter-ests of the United States. Cancellation paymentprovisions may include consideration of both re-curring and nonrecurring costs associated withthe real property interests under the contract.These lease agreements may provide for a can-cellation payment to be made. Amounts thatwere originally obligated for the cost of the con-tract may be used for cancellation or termi-nation costs.

"(b) The Secretary may enter into multiyearlease agreements under subsection (a) of thissection whenever the Secretary finds that-

"(1) the use of such a lease agreement willpromote the efficiency of the ATON, VTS, orNDS progrants and will result in reduced totalcosts under the agreement;

"(2) the minimum need for the real property orinterest therein to be leased is expected to re-main substantially unchanged during the con-templated lease period; and

"(3) the estimates of both the cost of the leaseand the anticipated cost avoidance through theuse of a multiyear lease are realistic.".

(b) The table of sections at the beginning ofchapter 17 of title 14, United States Code, isamended by adding after the item relating tosection 671 (as added by section 303 of this Act)the following:

"672. Long-term lease authority for navigationand communications systemssites.".

SEC. 305. AUTHORITY FOR EDUCATIONAL RE-SEARCH GRANTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.-Chapter 9 of title 14, UnitedStates Code, is amended by adding at the endthe following new section:

"§196. Participation in Federal, State, orother educational research grants"Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

the United States Coast Guard Academy maycompete for and accept Federal, State, or othereducational research grants, subject to the fol-lowing limitations:

"(1) No award may be accepted for the acqui-sition or construction of facilities.

"(2) No award may be accepted for the routinefunctions of the Academy.".

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sec-tions at the beginning of chapter 9 of title 14,United States Code, is amended by adding at theend the following:

"196. Participation in Federal, State, or othereducational research grants.".

SEC. 306. PREPOSITIONED OIL SPILL CLEANUPEQUIPMENT.

The Secretary of Transportation is authorizedto expend out of amounts appropriated for ac-quisition, construction, and improvement thatare derived from the Oil Spill Liability TrustFund for fiscal year 1994-

(1) $890,000 to acquire and preposition oil spillresponse equipment at Port Arthur, Texas, and

(2) $890,000 to acquire and preposition oil spillresponse equipment at Helena, Arkansas, sub-ject to the Secretary determining that adequatestorage and maintenance facilities are available.

SEC. 307. SHORE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS ATCOAST GUARD STATION LITTLECREEI4K VIRGINIA.

(a) The Secretary of Transportation, subjectto the availability of appropriations, may atCoast Guard Station Little Creek, Virginia-

(1) construct a 2-story station building withoperational, administrative, and living spaces;

(2) construct a 180-foot long pier for CoastGuard patrol boats;

(3) construct a boat ramp; and(4) strengthen a waterfront bulkhead.(b) Funds necessary to carry out this section

are authorized to be appropriated for fiscalyears 1994, 1995, and 1996.SEC. 308. OIL SPILL TRAINING SIMULATOR.

The Secretary of Transportation is authorizedto expend out of the amounts appropriated forfiscal year 1994 for acquisition, construction,and improvement that are derived from the OilSpill Liability Trust Fund not more than$1,250,000 to the New York Maritime College ofthe State of New York to purchase a marine oilspill management simulator.SEC. 309. GULF OF MEXICO REGIONAL FISHERIES

LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CEN-TER.

The Coast Guard shall establish the Gulf ofMexico Regional Fisheries Law EnforcementTraining Center in the Eighth Coast Guard Dis-trict in Southeastern Louisiana. The purpose ofthe Gulf of Mexico Regional Fisheries Law En-forcement Training Center shall be to increasethe skills and training of Coast Guard fisherieslaw enforcement personnel and to ensure thatsuch training considers and meets the uniqueand complex needs and demands of the fisheriesof the Gulf of Mexico.SEC. 310. OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

TECHNOLOGY TEST AND EVALUA-TION PROGRAM.

(a) Not later than 6 months after the date ofenactment of this Act, the Secretary of Trans-portation shall establish a program to evaluatethe technological feasibility and environmentalbenefits of having tank vessels carry oil spillprevention and response technology. To imple-ment the program the Secretary shall-

(1) publish in the Federal Register an invita-tion for submission of proposals including plansand procedures for testing; and

(2) review and evaluate technology using, tothe maximum extent possible, existing evalua-tion and performance standards.

(b) The Secretary shall, to the maximum ex-tent possible, incorporate in the program estab-lished in subsection (a), the results of existingstudies and evaluations of oil spill preventionand response technology carried on tank vessels.

(c) Not later than 2 years after the date of theenactment of this Act, the Secretary shall evalu-ate the results of the program established insubsection (a) and submit a report to Congresswith recommendations on the feasibility and en-vironmental benefits of, and appropriate equip-ment and utilization standards for, requiringtank vessels to carry oil spill prevention and re-sponse equipment.

(d) Not later than 6 months after the date ofthe enactment of this Act, the Secretary shallevaluate and report to the Congress on the fea-sibility of using segregated ballast tanks foremergency transfer of cargo and storage of re-covered oil.SEC. 311. UNMANNED SEAGOING BARGES.

Section 3302 of title 46, United States Code, isamended by adding at the end the following:

"(m) A seagoing barge is not subject to inspec-tion under section 3301(6) of this title if the ves-sel is unmanned and does not carry-

"(1) a hazardous material as cargo; or"(2) a flammable or combustible liquid, includ-

ing oil, in bulk.".

17935

17936SEC. 312. PROHIBITION ON DECOMMISSIONING

ICEBREAKER MACKINAW.(a) The Secretary of Transportation may not

decommission the Coast Guard cutter MACKI-NAW until the later of-

(1) 1 year after transmitting to the Congressthe report required under subsection (c); or

(2) October 1, 1994.(b) There is authorized to be appropriated to

the Secretary of Transportation $1,600,000 forfiscal year 1994, to remain available until ex-pended, for operations and maintenance of theCoast Guard cutter MACKINAW.

(c) Not later than 6 months after the date ofenactment of this Act, the Secretary of Trans-portation shall conduct a study and submit a re-port to the Congress on the icebreaking needs ofthe Great Lakes and the appropriate size andtype of vessel or vessels to meet those needs. Inconducting this study, the Secretary shall-

(1) consult with-(A) Great Lakes shippers, including the Lake

Carriers Association;(B) the Great Lakes Commission;(C) the Governors of States bordering the

Great Lakes;(D) local governments in States bordering the

Great Lakes; and(E) interested private persons;(2) determine the average and maximum ice

conditions in the Great Lakes over the past 10years;

(3) determine the size and type of vessel orvessels necessary to clear shipping channels inthe average and maximum ice conditions deter-mined under paragraph (2); and

(4) evaluate whether any Coast Guard vesselstationed on the Great Lakes, other than theMACKINAW, can safely conduct search andrescue missions in 25-foot seas.SEC. 313. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN COAST

GUARD OFFICE AT SAINT IGNACE,MICHIGAN.

The Secretary of Transportation shall duringfiscal year 1994-

(1) maintain at Saint Ignace, Michigan, theoffice known as the Marine Inspection Office,which shall perform the functions which wereperformed by that office on May 20, 1993; and

(2) maintain 4 billets at that office.SEC. 314. CAPE COD LIGHTHOUSE PLANNING AND

DESIGN STUDIES.(a) COMPLETION OF STUDIES.-Not later than

12 months after the date of the enactment of thisAct, the Secretary of Transportation, in con-sultation with the Secretary of the Interior,shall complete the necessary planning and de-sign studies identified in the Coast Guard'sstrategy document for the relocation of the CapeCod Lighthouse (popularly known as the"Highland Light Station"), located in NorthTruro, Massachusetts.

(b) USE OF AMOUNTS FOR STUDIES.-Of theamounts appropriated under the authority ofthis Act for acquisition, construction, rebuild-ing, and improvement, the Secretary of Trans-portation may use up to $600,000 for conductingthe studies required under subsection (a).SEC. 315. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER MARINE FIRE

AND SAFETY ACTIVITIES.The Secretary of Transportation is authorized

to expend out of the amounts appropriated forthe Coast Guard for fiscal year 1994 not morethan $421,700, for fiscal year 1995 not more than$358,300, and for fiscal year 1996 not more than$300,000 for the lower Columbia River marine,fire, oil, and toxic spill response communica-tions, training, equipment, and program admin-istration activities conducted by the Marine Fireand Safety Association.SEC. 316. TRANSFER OF LIGHTHOUSES.

(a) AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER.-(1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary may convey

by any appropriate means to the Washington


State Parks and Recreation Commission allright, title, and interest of the United States inand to property comprising 1 or more of theCape Disappointment Lighthouse, North HeadLighthouse, and Point Wilson Lighthouse.

(2) IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY.-The Sec-retary may identify, describe, and determineproperty conveyed pursuant to this section.

(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.-(1) IN GENERAL.-The conveyance of property

pursuant to subsection (a) shall be made-(A) without the payment of consideration;

and(B) subject to such terms and conditions as

the Secretary may consider appropriate.(2) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.-In addition to

any term or condition established pursuant toparagraph (1), any conveyance of property com-prising Cape Disappointment Lighthouse, NorthHead Lighthouse, or Point Wilson Lighthousepursuant to this section shall be subject to thecondition that all right, title, and interest inand to the property so conveyed shall imme-diately revert to the United States if the prop-erty, or any part thereof-

(A) ceases to be used as a center for publicbenefit for the interpretation and preservationof maritime history;

(B) ceases to be maintained in a manner thatensures its present or future use as a CoastGuard aid to navigation; or

(C) ceases to be maintained in a manner con-sistent with the provisions of the National His-toric Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 etseq.).

(3) REQUIRED CONDITIONS.-Any conveyanceof property pursuant to this section shall bemade subject to such conditions as the Secretaryconsiders to be necessary to assure that-

(A) the lights, antennas, and associatedequipment located on the property conveyed,which are active aids to navigation, shall con-tinue to be operated and maintained by theUnited States;

(B) the Washington State Parks and Recre-ation Commission may not interfere or allow in-terference in any manner with such aids tonavigation without express written permissionfrom the Secretary of Transportation;

(C) there is reserved to the United States theright to relocate, replace, or add any aids tonavigation or make any changes on any portionof such property as may be necessary for navi-gation purposes;

(D) the United States shall have the right, atany time, to enter such property without noticefor the purpose of maintaining aids to naviga-tion;

(E) the United States shall have an easementof access to such property for the purpose ofmaintaining the aids to navigation in use on theproperty; and

(F) the property shall be rehabilitated andmaintained by the owner in accordance with theprovisions of the National Historic PreservationAct of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).

(4) MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT NOTREQUIRED.-The Washington State Parks andRecreation Commission shall not have any obli-gation to maintain any active aid to navigationequipment on property conveyed pursuant tothis section.

(c) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section,the term-

(1) "Cape Disappointment Lighthouse" meansthe Coast Guard lighthouse located at FortCanby State Park, Washington, including-

(A) the lighthouse, excluding any lantern orlens that is the personal property of the CoastGuard; and

(B) such land as may be necessary to enablethe Washington State Parks and RecreationCommission to operate at that lighthouse a cen-ter for public benefit for the interpretation andpreservation of the maritime history;

July 30, 1993(2) "North Head Lighthouse" means the Coast

Guard lighthouse located at Fort Canby StatePark, Washington, including-

(A) the lighthouse, excluding any lantern orlens that is the personal property of the CoastGuard;

(B) ancillary buildings; and(C) such land as may be necessary to enable

the Washington State Parks and RecreationCommission to operate at that lighthouse a cen-ter for public benefit for the interpretation andpreservation of maritime history;

(3) "Point Wilson Lighthouse" means theCoast Guard lighthouse located at Fort WordenState Park, Washington, including-

(A) the lighthouse, excluding any lantern orlens that is the personal property of the CoastGuard;

(B) 2 ancillary buildings; and(C) such land as may be necessary to enable

the Washington State Parks and RecreationCommission to operate at that lighthouse a cen-ter for public benefit for the interpretation andpreservation of maritime history; and

(4) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the de-partment in which the Coast Guard is operat-ing.

AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offeramendments, and I ask unanimous con-sent that they be considered en bloc.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromLouisiana?

There was no objection.The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-

port the amendments.The Clerk read as follows:Amendments offered by Mr. TAUZIN:On page 2, line 18, insert "to carry out the

purposes of section 1012(a)(5) of the Oil Pollu-tion Act of 1990" after "Fund".

On page 21, strike line 14 and all that fol-lows through page 22, line 2 and insert thefollowing:

"(a) COMPLETION OF STUDIES.-"(1) PLANNING.-Not later than 6 months

after the date of enactment of this Act, theSecretary of Transportation and the Sec-retary of the Interior shall complete the nec-essary planning studies, including selectionof a relocation site, identified in the CoastGuard's strategy document for relocation ofthe Cape Cod Lighthouse (popularly knownas the "Highland Light Station"), located inNorth Truro, Massachusetts.

"(2) DESIGN.-Not later than 18 monthsafter the date of enactment of this Act, theSecretary of Transportation shall completethe design studies identified in the CoastGuard's strategy document for relocation ofthe Cape Cod Lighthouse.

"(b) USE OF AMOUNTS FOR STUDIES.-Ofamounts appropriated under the authority ofthis Act for acquisition, construction, re-building, and improvement, the Secretary ofTransportation may use up to $600,000 forconducting the studies required under sub-section (a).".

At the end of the bill add the following newsections:"SEC. .CASS RIVER.

"Subtitle II of title 46, United States Code,relating only to Vessel inspection and man-ning, shall not apply to a vessel operating onthe date of enactment of this Act on the CassRiver above the dam at Frankenmuth,Michigan (locally known as the HubingerDam) which is inspected and licensed by theState of Michigan to carry passengers.".

At the end of the bill add the following:SEC. . COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

No funds appropriated pursuant to this Actmay be expended by an entity unless the en-tity agrees that in expending the assistance

July 30, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

the entity will comply with sections 2through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1993 (41U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as the "BuyAmerican Act").SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT RE-

GARDING NOTICE.(a) PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIP-

MENT AND PRODUCTS.-In case of any equip-ment or products that may be authorized tobe purchased with financial assistance pro-vided under this Act, it is the sense of theCongress that entities receiving such assist-ance should, in expending the assistance,purchase only American-made equipmentand products.

(d) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE.-In providing financial assistance under thisAct, the head of each Federal agency shallprovide to each recipient of the assistance anotice describing the statement made in sub-section (a) by the Congress.SEC. . PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS.

If it is finally determined by a court orFederal agency that a person intentionallyaffixed a label bearing a "Made in America"inscription, or any inscription with the samemeaning, to any product sold in or shippedto the United States that is not made in theUnited States, such person shall be deter-mined to be ineligible to receive any con-tract or subcontract made with funds pro-vided pursuant to this Act, pursuant to thedebarment, suspension, and ineligibility pro-cedures described in sections 9.400 through9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

Mr. TAUZIN (during the reading).Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-sent that the amendments be consid-ered as read and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromLouisiana.


O 1150Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, my

amendment is noncontroversial andhas been prepared by the Committee onMerchant Marine and Fisheries to ad-dress three issues that have arisensince H.R. 2150 was reported.

The first part of the amendmentclarifies that the $23,030,000 authorizedto be appropriated from the oilspill li-ability trust fund in section 101(2) ofthe bill is intended to be used to carryout the purposes of the Oil PollutionAct of 1990.

The second part of the committeeamendment makes modest changes tosection 314 of the bill, concerning therelocation of Cape Cod Light, locatedin Truro, MA. Specifically, the amend-ment would grant the Coast Guard,working with the National Park Serv-ice, 18 months to complete planningand design studies for the relocation ofthe light. While the Park Service willbe involved in this process, the workcan be done with its current operatingbudget. This language is being intro-duced to address concerns the CoastGuard had with section 314.

The third part of the amendment willaddress an issue brought to the com-mittee's attention by my colleaguefrom the Fifth District of Michigan,Representative BARCIA. This sectionclarifies the shared responsibility of

the Coast Guard and the State ofMichigan concerning the regulation ofa vessel that operates on Cass River inFrankenmuth, MI. The committee de-veloped this language with the co-operation of both the Coast Guard andthe State of Michigan.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gen-tleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I justwant to indicate my appreciation tothe gentleman and my support for theamendments.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,if the gentleman will yield, the minor-ity has had an opportunity to reviewthe amendments. It was our under-standing that the gentleman from Ohio[Mr. TRAFICANT] was going to offer hisamendment himself, but we are pre-pared to accept his amendment and wehave no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment en bloc offered by thegentleman from Louisiana [Mr. TAU-ZIN].

The amendments were agreed to.AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer anamendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: Page 27,

after line 2, add the following:SEC. . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING

FUNDING FOR COAST GUARD.It is the sense of the Congress that in ap-

propriating amounts for the Coast Guard,the Congress should appropriate amountsadequate to enable the Coast Guard to carryout all extraordinary functions and dutiesthe Coast Guard is required to undertake inaddition to its normal functions establishedby law.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, my amend-ment simply seeks to set the recordstraight. It says it is the sense of thisCongress that when we require theCoast Guard to take on additional orextraordinary duties, we will also con-sider how to pay for them.

The Coast Guard is the smallest ofour armed services, yet its responsibil-ities are great. We ask the Coast Guardto be responsible for the navigationand safety of our waterways, for mari-time law enforcement, for emergencysearch and rescue, for maritime inspec-tion and licensing, for defense readi-ness, and much, much more.

On top of these vital functions, theCoast Guard is often called upon toperform extraordinary services-serv-ices in addition to its many normal du-ties. These extra responsibilities aremost often unplanned and unfunded.

The most recent example of an ex-traordinary service is Operation AbleManner. Since January of this year,and several times in the recent past, amassive Coast Guard deployment haspatrolled the windward passage be-tween Haiti and the United States.

Operation Able Manner has involvedan enormous commitment of manpower

and equipment: The full costs of theoperation to date are estimated to beover $88 million. Millions of dollars arebeing spent in this effort which werenot budgeted for interdiction activi-ties, meaning that the money must betaken from elsewhere in the budget.

Given the Coast Guard's alreadystretched resources, I find the fact thatwe are forcing it to scale back vital op-erations in order to meet the extraor-dinary needs of the Haitian crisis verydisturbing. I am appalled that in gen-eral we continue to increase the re-sponsibilities of the Coast Guard whilecutting its operating expenses.

While my amendment cannot resolvepast funding shortfalls, it does put theMembers of this body on record: It saysthat Congress will back up its demandson the Coast Guard with funds nec-essary to carry them out.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I urgesupport for my amendment.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Texas.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,I support this amendment

Mr. Chairman, we cannot require theCoast Guard to dramatically increaseHaitian interdiction activities withoutadequate funds. Additional costs forHaitian interdiction must come fromsomewhere, and I do not support a de-crease in Coast Guard drug interdic-tion, search and rescue or environ-mental protection to cover those costs.

I think the gentleman makes an ex-cellent point with his amendment, andI support it.


Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thinkthe gentleman's amendment makes agreat deal of sense. I only wish it alsohad dollars, but I am very happy tosupport it.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will thegentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentlemanfrom Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wantto thank the gentleman for raising thispoint. This is just one of many in-stances where the Coast Guard hasbeen asked and required to extend itsresources to carry out a function thatwe had not anticipated. In this rescuemission in the Caribbean to save theselives, the Coast Guard had to readjust,reallocate millions of dollars that oth-erwise would have been used in searchand rescue and drug interdiction andmaintenance and inspection, all theother things we are required to do.

Yet we appropriated none of thismoney for the Coast Guard. It pinches,it contains, it makes it more difficultfor the Coast Guard to do its life savingand property saving activities, whenwe have to do these extra functions andnobody provides the money.

17937

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 30, 1993The gentleman highlights that with

his amendment. While there is nomoney attached to it, we wish therewas. We certainly support the gen-tleman in his amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].

The amendment was agreed to.Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the last word.Mr. Chairman. I rise to express my

strong support for the Coast Guard andthe vital functions it performs.

In my district, we greatly appreciatethe prominent presence of the CoastGuard in several locations in Astoria.We recognize and heavily rely on themarine safety assistance services itprovides. This agency carries a heavyburden of responsibilities on its shoul-ders: search and rescue operations,boating and environmental safety, druginterdiction, and the enforcement of amultitude of laws and treaties govern-ing the high seas, among others. Toooften, we take for granted the role ofthis extremely valuable agency. In pastyears, this agency has consistentlybeen underfunded.

I am pleased to add my voice to thesupport expressed by my colleagues forthis fiscal year 1994 authorization forthe Coast Guard.

0 1200

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FIELDS OF TEXAS

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. FIELDS of

Texas: At the end of the bill add the follow-ing:SEC. . MERCHANT MARINER QUALIFIED SERV-

ICE.

Part G of Subtitle II, title 46 United StatesCode is amended by adding the following newchapter:

"CHAPTER 112-MERCHANT MARINERQUALIFIED SERVICE

"Sec."11201. General."11202. Qualified service benefits."11203. Processing fees."11204. Definitions."§ 11201. General

"An individual who served as a member ofthe United States merchant marine betweenDecember 7, 1941, and December 31, 1946, wasengaged in qualified service for purposes ofthis chapter if during that period the personwas-

"(1) licensed or otherwise documented byan officer or employee of the United Statesauthorized to do so; and

"(2) a crewmember of a vessel that at thetime of such service was-

"(A) documented in the United States;"(B) operated in waters other than inland

waters of the United States;"(C) under contract, charter to, or prop-

erty of, the Government of the UnitedStates; and

"(D) serving the Armed Forces."§ 11202. Qualified service benefits

"(a) An individual who meets the require-ments for qualified service under section11201 may apply to the Secretary for benefits

provided to an individual under section401(a)(l)(A) of the Act.

"(b) When the Secretary determines thatan individual meets the requirements forqualified service under section 11201, the Sec-retary shall notify the Secretary of Defense.

"(c) Not later than one year after the indi-vidual has applied for benefits under sub-section (a), the Secretary of Defense shallissue an honorable discharge to the individ-ual described in subsection (b) whose quali-fied service warrants an honorable dischargeunder section 401(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

"(d) The Secretary of Transportation shallpay for any benefits that an individual re-ceives under this chapter. The Secretarymay not pay for benefits for any period priorto the date of enactment of this chapter."§ 11203. Processing fees

"(a) The Secretary shall establish, assess,and collect a fee for processing applicationsfor benefits under section 11202.

"(b) A fee established under this sectionapplies to an application that the Secretaryreceives after the enactment of this Act fora benefit, including an increase in a benefit,under section 11202.

"(c) The amount of a fee established underthis section is $30."§11204. Definitions

"In this chapter-"(1) 'the Act' means the GI Bill Improve-

ment Act of 1977."."(2) 'United States merchant marine' in-

cludes the United States Army TransportService.".

Mr. FIELDS of Texas (during thereading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-mous consent that the amendment beconsidered as read and printed in theRECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objectionto the request of the gentleman fromTexas?

There was no objection.Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,

this amendment will correct a 47-year-old injustice by providing recognitionto several thousand merchant marinerswho served this Nation during WorldWar II.

Mr. Chairman, for the past 3 years,LANE EVANS and I have worked to en-sure that the House had an opportunityto consider the Merchant MarinersFairness Act.

This bill, which has been cosponsoredby over 218 Members, has been unani-mously reported three times by theMerchant Marine and Fisheries Com-mittee.

The sole purpose of H.R. 44 is to pro-vide veterans status to those merchantmariners who served this country be-tween December 7, 1941, and December31, 1946.

This measure is necessary in order tocorrect a January 19, 1988, decision bythen Air Force Secretary Edward Al-dridge who unilaterally decided thatWorld War II ended on August 15, 1945,for those who served in the U.S. mer-chant marine.

Mr. Chairman, clearly, that was amost unfair and unsupportable deci-sion. By establishing this date, theSecretary made a determination thathas no basis in law. The August 15,

1945, date does not appear anywhere inthe Federal Court decision mandatingveterans status and, according to theAir Force, there is no documentation,no precedent, and no justification forchoosing V-J Day.

It is essential we remember that itwasn't until December 31, 1946, thatPresident Harry Truman declared inProclamation 2714 that "although astate of war still exists, it is at thistime possible to declare that hostilitieshave terminated."

Furthermore, all of our Federal lawsthat affect those who served during theWorld War II period use the dates De-cember 7, 1941, to December 31, 1946.

Mr. Chairman, in an effort to movethis legislation forward, I am now of-fering a modified version of H.R. 44 asan amendment to this legislation. Thisamendment will provide recognition tothe 2,500 Americans adversely affectedby Secretary Aldridge's decision.

Under my amendment, those Ameri-cans who were in the active merchantmarine on or before December 31, 1946,will be given veterans status.

This amendment will modify Sec-retary Aldridge's unfair 1988 decisionby eliminating the arbitrary date ofAugust 15, 1945, and the foreign ocean-going voyage requirement.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is afair solution to this problem and it willtreat all those who served during theWorld War II period in exactly thesame equitable manner. For instance,under current law, if an individual wasin boot camp or basic training on De-cember 31, 1946, they are considered aWorld War II veteran.

While in theory about 2,500 Ameri-cans would be eligible for a variety ofveterans benefits, in reality the onlybenefits they are likely to obtain fromthis amendment are recognition andthe right to have a flag on their coffin.

After all, educational benefits havelong since expired, people in their late60's do not buy new homes, and all ofthese individuals are eligible for Medi-care benefits. In short, it is highly un-likely that any of these individualswill ever seek care at a VA hospital. Infact, we know that 71,000 merchantmariners have been given veterans sta-tus because of the 1988 decision and, ofthat number, only a handful have re-ceived VA hospital benefits.

Furthermore, under the terms of thisamendment, the Secretary of Transpor-tation will reimburse the Departmentof Veterans Affairs for any and all ben-efits received under this proposal. Inshort, this amendment will not costVA hospitals or any veterans programany money whatsoever. Let me re-peat-this amendment will not cost theVA a single dime.

In terms of budget implications, theCongressional Budget Office has esti-mated that this amendment would re-sult in outlays of only $100,000 in fiscalyear 1994. Furthermore, this amend-ment requires that an individual seek-ing veterans status pay the Coast

17938

July 30, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEGuard a $30 processing fee. This fee willcover all administrative costs.

Mr. Chairman, I have been contactedby those Americans affected by Sec-retary Aldridge's unfair decision. Eachof these individuals shares the commoncharacteristics of love of country andthe commitment to service during oneof the most difficult periods in our Na-tion's history.

Unlike their brothers in uniform,America's merchant seamen camehome to no tickertape parades or cele-brations. Little, if anything, was saidabout the contributions they made todefeating the Axis powers and to pre-serving the freedoms and liberties weAmericans cherish.

As Gen. Douglas MacArthur stated,"The merchant seamen shared theheaviest enemy fire. They contributedtremendously to our success."

Today, by approving this amend-ment, we can finally complete the jobof providing fairness to those distin-guished Americans who served in ourmerchant marine during World War II.

While the hour is late, we must notforget these proud Americans whomade such invaluable contributions toour country's successful war effort.These men have waited a long time totell their grandchildren that they areWorld War II veterans.

Mr. Chairman, again I want to sin-cerely want to thank those Members,most notably LANE EVANS and GERRYSTUDDS, who have joined with me inthis noble effort. While this amend-ment affects only a handful of people,it is a just remedy and it will stoptreating these Americans as second-class citizens.

I urge the adoption of the Fieldsamendment.


Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I am glad toyield to the gentleman from Massachu-setts.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I wantto commend the gentleman. I thinkthis is a subject of great consequence.Our dealing with it is long overdue. Iappreciate the gentleman's takingleadership at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Texas [Mr. FIELDS].

The amendment was agreed to.Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the last word.Mr. Chairman, first allow me to com-

mend subcommittee chairman, thegentleman from Louisiana [Mr. TAU-ZIN], the ranking member, the gen-tleman from North Carolina [Mr.COBLE], and their respective staffs forputting together a responsible, fiscallysound budget authorization for thecoming year. In addition, the commit-tee budget authorization calls for nec-essary program and facility improve-ments while maintaining adequateforce levels for the many responsibil-ities our Coast Guard must carry out.

I believe we have a good sound budg-et for the Coast Guard. Later this weekwe will have the opportunity to vote onthe Transportation appropriations bill.Much of what is contained in this au-thorization is not contained in the ap-propriation. Facing this obstacle frus-trates me. As a result, many programsfor drug interdiction and oilspill re-sponses will not be fully funded. But, Ido thank Chairman CARR for under-standing our concerns and in redraftinglanguage to more adequately protectthe Coast Guard.

The long-range plan of the CoastGuard must be matched with a long-term vision for the Coast Guard byMembers of the U.S. Congress. It is myhope that the Congress will adequatelydevelop the Guard in the years to comeby providing the necessary resources.

Mr. Chairman, we have all witnessedthe wonderful job the Coast Guard isperforming along the Mississippi River.So the Guard can respond to such natu-ral disasters and at times manmade ac-cidents, we must keep the Coast Guardin a ready state. We must give themthe tools for the job. This authoriza-tion does that.

In conclusion, I look forward to cast-ing a vote in favor of this budget reso-lution. Our commitment to a strongCoast Guard must continue throughwhatever stormy seas remain ahead.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CARR OFMICHIGAN

Mr. CARR of Michigan. Mr. Chair-man, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:Amendment offered by Mr. CARR of Michi-

gan: On page 2, line 20, strike the firstcomma and insert in lieu thereof: "of tech-nologies, materials, and human factors di-rectly relating to improving the performanceof the Coast Guard's mission".

Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, I want totake this opportunity to highlight thecooperative spirit between the Com-mittee on Merchant Marine and Fish-eries and, in particular, the chairmanof the Subcommittee on the CoastGuard and Navigation, and the cooper-ative spirit that that committee hashad with our committee. We appreciatethe fact that we get good advice fromthe gentleman's committee and wework together. It is a real pleasure. Welook forward to always hearing thegentleman's testimony before our com-mittee as we assess the Coast Guard'sneeds for the coming year, and we lis-ten to the advice that he gives us.

Mr. Chairman, during the last appro-priation hearing on the Coast Guard wedid address the issue of research anddevelopment under the Coast Guard ac-counts. The chairman, the gentlemanfrom Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN] was there,and we discussed the matter with him.We also discussed the matter with Ad-miral Kime. It turns out that throughthe many years of authorizations andreauthorizations, the hard definition ofwhat the mission for research and de-

velopment for the Coast Guard mightbe has become a little bit fuzzy, andAdmiral Kime admitted as much, andsaid they were working on trying totighten up the definition of their re-search and development mission.

To help that process along, and inconsultation with the leaders of theCoast Guard subcommittee on bothsides, I authorized this amendment, oractually co-authorized with the com-mittee, to try to give us a better yard-stick on appropriations so that we willbe able to better measure the requests,both from the Coast Guard and fromMembers, as they may be.

It is in that spirit that I offer thisfairly technical but hopefully improv-ing amendment.


Mr. CARR. I am glad to yield to thegentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I wantto thank the gentleman for his expres-sion of understanding and appreciationof the spirit with which the two com-mittees cooperate. That is fully appre-ciated, fully reciprocated, and we arehappy to accept the gentleman'samendment.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARR. I am happy to yield to thegentleman from Texas.

Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman,the minority is prepared to accept theamendment this morning, also. Wehave had the discussions. If there is aneed to change a word, a comma, wehave discussed that the chairmanwould continue to work with us in thatparticular respect.

We agree with the thrust of what thegentleman is trying to accomplish withthis amendment.

Mr. CARR. I absolutely concur withwhat the gentleman says. This is an ef-fort to get some help on performing ourappropriations functions. I think thecommittee understands the need forthe help we seek. We leave it in yourhands how best to do that. The gen-tleman may have to change somethings in conference, and we fully un-derstand that.


Mr. CARR. I am glad to yield to thegentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I person-ally want to thank the distinguishedgentleman from Michigan [Mr. CARR],the chairman of the Subcommittee onTransportation of the Committee onAppropriations, for his kind words, andto echo them. The cooperative spiritbetween our two committees -is one, Iam sure, that many other appropriat-ing and authorizing committees wouldlike to have.

I particularly want to thank the gen-tleman for the efforts he has made andwill continue to make in the appropria-tion bill to see to it that vital CoastGuard needs are not underfunded.

17939

17940 (In regard to this amendment, I join

with the gentleman in working withthe gentleman from Texas [Mr. FIELDS]and others to ensure that this languagedoes indeed tie down the researchmoney to its intended purpose.

This is just for the record, so we willknow that the Coast Guard is doingreally good research programs. Let mehighlight a few, if I might.

They are developing a new computernow that will assist in search and res-cue capability, narrowed down to verysmall areas, adjusting for wind cur-rents, tides, wind speeds, and weatherconditions, so we can go out directly tothe scene of an accident, and peoplewill not drown or be insured withoutrecovery.

We are advancing research on the ad-vanced global positioning system de-velopment. That will be the satellitesystem that will identify the locationof vessels with pinpoint accuracy. Thatresearch is going forward.

We are researching engineering onthe VTS-2000 program, the programwhich I mentioned earlier to make surevessels do not collide in our ports andharbors.

We are doing fire safety research andengineering safety, smoke control onpassenger vessels, fire endurance ofaluminum materials on small pas-senger vessels, much good research. Wewant to make sure it is targeted to theright purposes.

I join the gentleman in that effort ofensuring we have the right language,and again, I thank the gentleman forthe extraordinary level of cooperationbetween the two committees.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is onthe amendment offered by the gen-tleman from Michigan [Mr. CARR].

The amendment was agreed to.Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. Mr. Chair-

man, I move to strike the last word.Mr. Chairman, I would like to take

this opportunity to thank both the dis-tinguished gentleman from Massachu-setts [Mr. STUDDS], the chairman of thestanding committee and authorizingcommittee, for the superb job that hehas done preparing this Coast Guardauthorization bill, as well as extend myappreciation to our outstanding sub-committee chairman, the gentlemanfrom Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN], and offermy gratitude on behalf of my constitu-ents for an amendment which was justincluded in the amendments en blocthat were adopted, addressing an issuethat we addressed in my district inFrankenmuth, MI, in which a sectionof the Cass River which is only about 2or 2/2 feet deep, but in the 1800's servedas a transportation route for loggingactivities, and therefore has resulted ina declaration by the Coast Guard thatin fact this is an interstate river whichis engaged in interstate commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to thesubcommittee chairman, the chairman,and certainly ranking members of the

ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

committee that I would like to expressthe appreciation of the people of mydistrict for the flexibility which isgiven so that the Coast Guard will nothave to directly regulate the RiverboatQueen, which traverses throughFrankenmuth on the Cass River, andjust point out to the Members thatpublic safety will not be jeopardized,because our Michigan Department ofNatural Resources has a very stringentset of regulations, and through discus-sions with the Michigan DNR and thestaff of the gentleman's subcommittee,the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.TAUZIN], we have come to a successful,I think, resolution to a problem thatconcerned my constituents.

I just want to offer my gratitude andsay thanks for the great work that hehas done on the preparation of this au-thorization bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there furtheramendments to the bill?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, Imove to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in acolloquy with the chairman, the gen-tleman from Massachusetts [Mr.STUDDS].

Mr. Chairman, I rise to convey myserious concerns, as shared by my goodfriend, the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. LIPINSKI] and the distinguishedmajority whip, the gentleman fromMichigan [Mr. BONIOR], regarding al-leged Coast Guard interference in labordisputes on the Great Lakes. I wouldlike to highlight the nature of theseconcerns, and highlight what appro-priate Coast Guard behavior would en-tail.

In July 1992, I was contacted by Ray-mond Sierra, vice president of theInternational Longshoremen's Union[ILA] and an official of its Great LakesDistrict Council, who complainedabout U.S. Coast Guard interference inan ILA labor dispute with two grainstevedores at Burns International Har-bor in Portage, IN. Mr. Sierra asked fora congressional inquiry of this inci-dent. Alarmed by the serious nature ofthis charge, I joined the gentlemanfrom Michigan [Mr. BONIOR] and formerCongresswoman Mary Rose Oakar inrequesting an inquiry by the MerchantMarine and Fisheries Subcommittee onOversight and Investigations, whichwas chaired by Congressman LIPINSKI.

Last November, the Subcommitteeon Oversight and Investigations con-vened a field hearing to investigate theBurns Harbor incident. ILA membersinvolved in this incident deliveredcompelling testimony at the hearing,which reinforced my concerns that theCoast Guard overstepped its bounds ingrounding two ILA picket boats en-gaged in a legal picket of the grain ste-vedores.

Coast Guard policy states: "Under nocircumstances will the Coast Guard ex-ercise its authority for the purpose offavoring any party to a maritime laborcontroversy."

July 30, 1993The Coast Guard has maintained that

it was acting only to ensure the en-forcement of Federal laws designed toprotect the safety of life and propertyon the water. However, based on theCoast Guard's testimony at last year'shearing, I am not convinced that wasthe sole purpose of their actions. Un-fortunately, the Coast Guard's witnessat the hearing was not personally in-volved in the incident. Further, he wasunable to answer specific questionsabout the sequence of events thatmight have clarified the nature of theCoast Guard's actions at Burns Harbor.

Mr. Chairman, I have received fur-ther information from the longshore-men regarding this matter, which enu-merates other points of contention be-tween the union and the Coast Guard.It is my hope that we can have your co-operation in fully resolving this situa-tion. It is my hope that with your help,and through our continuing efforts, wewill get the answers we are looking forand put this matter to rest, once andfor all.

Mr. STUDDS. Will the gentlemanyield?

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gen-tleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. STUDDS. I thank the gentlemanfor bringing this matter to my atten-tion. The Coast Guard policy on in-volvement in labor disputes seemsquite clear to me. If the safety of lifeand property are not at issue, the CoastGuard should not be involved-period.

.Some serious questions have beenraised by the ILA, and our committeewill be happy to work with you and theCoast Guard to get to the bottom ofthis.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gen-tleman.

O 1210Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word.Mr. Chairman, it had been my inten-

tion to offer an amendment to prohibitthe Secretary of Transportation fromrepairing any Coast Guard vessel in ashipyard owned and operated by theUnited States if the Secretary has so-licited proposals to conduct the workfrom private shipyards. It has recentlycome to my attention that a shipyardowned and operated by the U.S. Gov-ernment was competing with privateU.S. shipyards for a Coast Guard repaircontract.

Since 1981, 60,000 shipyard jobs havebeen lost in this country, and morethan 40 yards have closed. If that trendis to be reversed, this country musthave a rational and comprehensiveshipbuilding policy. To develop thatpolicy, Chairman RON DELLUMS of theCommittee on Armed Services andMembers on both sides of the aisle andI have introduced the National Ship-building and Conversion Act of 1993which will encourage Governmentagencies to work with the U.S. ship-building industry, not against them.


My amendment was consistent withthe goal of that act, and would preventthe Coast Guard from unfairlydisadvantaging private shipyards withsubsidized Government contracts.

Mr. Chairman, I was informed thismorning by the Coast Guard that theyhave revised their policy to act consist-ently with the intention of my amend-ment and that, therefore, the amend-ment is not necessary. But let me justsay it is my intention, and I suspectthat of the gentleman from Louisiana[Mr. TAUZIN] and others on both sidesof the aisle to pursue this matter tomake sure that, in fact, the policy haschanged, and also to work with mem-bers of the Armed Services Committeein that regard.


Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gen-tleman from Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wantto commend the gentleman for his at-tention to this issue and for securingfrom the Coast Guard this commitmentto change its policy. The gentleman isabsolutely right. If we are going tohave any kind of a shipbuilding capa-bility in America, we cannot have Gov-ernment shipyards competing for jobsthat private shipyards can and shouldbe performing.

We are going to have oversight of theCoast Guard in this regard, and I as-sure the chairman of the full commit-tee that we will have reports comingback to him in regard to the findingsthat we make on this change of policy.

Mr. STUDDS. I thank the distin-guished gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there furtheramendments to the bill?

If not, the question is on the Com-mittee amendment in the nature of asubstitute, as amended.

The committee amendment in thenature of a substitute, as amended, wasagreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, theCommittee rises.

Accordingly, the Committee rose;and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.MFUME) having assumed the chair, Mr.DARDEN, Chairman of the Committee ofthe Whole House on the State of theUnion, reported that that Committee,having had under consideration the bill(H.R. 2150) to authorize appropriationsfor fiscal year 1994 for the U.S. CoastGuard, and for other purposes, pursu-ant to House Resolution 206, he re-ported the bill back to the House withan amendment adopted by the Commit-tee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Underthe rule, the previous question is or-dered.

Is a separate vote demanded on anyamendment to the committee amend-ment in the nature of a substituteadopted by the Committee of theWhole? If not, the question is on theamendment.

The amendment was agreed to.The bill was ordered to be engrossed

and read a third time, was read thethird time, and passed, and a motion toreconsider was laid on the table.

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that all Membersmay have 5 legislative days in which torevise and extend their remarks onH.R. 2150, the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Massachusetts?


PERSONAL EXPLANATIONMr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, due to district

work on the Idaho wilderness issue, I was un-able to vote on rollcall vote No. 387 on HouseResolution 206, the rule providing for the con-sideration of H.R. 2150 Coast Guard author-ization. Had I been present I would have voted"yes" on rollcall vote No. 387.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM(Mr. GOSS asked and was given per-

mission to address the House for 1minute.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would liketo inquire if I may of the distinguishedmajority leader if we may have someinformation about the likely programbefore us, and I am happy to yield tothe gentleman for that purpose.

O 1220Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gen-

tleman for yielding to me.Mr. Speaker, obviously there will be

no more votes today. On Monday, Au-gust 2, we will meet at noon, and wewill consider on suspension 19 bills,which I will not take your time toread. We do have them available in theCloakrooms.

The votes will be held on all of thesesuspensions until the end of the lastsuspension. To give Members a sense, Ithink probably around four to six theyshould expect the votes to ensue.

On Tuesday, August 3, and the bal-ance of the week, the House will meetat noon on Tuesday, August 3, and willmeet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, Thurs-day, and possibly Friday. We will betaking up H.R. 2530, Bureau of LandManagement authorization, subject toa rule, H.R. 2750, Transportation appro-priation for fiscal year 1994; H.R. 2330,the Intelligence Authorization Act for1994, subject to a rule; H.R. 2401, De-fense authorization for fiscal year 1994,subject to a rule; obviously, the Omni-bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,a conference report, subject to a rule;and H.R. 1340, Resolution Trust Cor-poration completion, subject to a rule.

We obviously also have conferencereport on H.R. 2267, the disaster assist-ance supplemental that we expect, the

17941conference report; and H.R. 2348, legis-lative branch appropriations is ex-pected. Other conference reports maybe brought up at any time.

At the close of the week's business,the House will recess until noon onWednesday, September 8, for the Au-gust/Labor Day district work period.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Iwonder if I might further inquire as toa couple of specific points of the distin-guished majority leader; these haveraised matters of interest on our sideof the aisle.

Is there any information that we canreport on H.R. 2750, the Transportationappropriations for fiscal year 1994, onthat situation? I yield to the gen-tleman.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gen-tleman. We are still working with thevarious parties involved, trying towork out a rule or a process by whichthis matter could be brought up. Wehave not reached an agreement, and Icannot guarantee the gentleman thatwe will be able to bring up the bill nextweek, but we are trying very hard to dothat.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman.Reclaiming my time, I have two otherareas that come to mind which arematters of high concern, I think, to ev-erybody.

First, is there any more certaintythat the majority leader could give usabout the Omnibus Budget Reconcili-ation Act, exactly how that is going towork into the end of the schedule nextweek? Should Members be advised notto make firm plans at this point? Ormaintain flexibility, or any other guid-ance? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Our hope is that theconference report will be ready for fil-ing on Monday and that we can get thebill up for a vote on Wednesday of nextweek. It may be later than that in theweek, but we hope not. If that can beaccomplished, then we should be ableto get our work done here on Thursdayor Friday at the latest.

Mr. GOSS. I again thank the distin-guished majority leader. Reclaimingmy time, I find there has been anotherarea of concern that perhaps I thinkthe gentleman could help us clarify. Ithink we understand, but we want to besure.

Is consideration being given for ex-tending time for Members to fileamendments on the Defense authoriza-tion? The time on that is currentlynoon on Monday. That request was dis-cussed yesterday. There has been con-versation earlier today. But I yield tothe majority leader if he has furtherinformation.

Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentlemanwould yield, as I understand, the com-mittee requested that the amendmentsbe filed by noon on Monday. It is myunderstanding that has not changed.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I be-lieve that is our understanding also. I

July 30, 1993

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 30, 1993hope all parties who are interested willbe apprised of that understanding.

One final question, if I may ask thedistinguished majority leader: Is thereany plan at this time to deal furtherwith the Hatch Act, the conference onthat? I yield.

Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentlemanwill yield, there is no expectation thatthat will be coming up next week. Itwill probably be after the recess.

Mr. GOSS. I thank the distinguishedmajority leader, and at this time Iyield back the balance of my time.

ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY,AUGUST 2, 1993

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that when theHouse adjourns today it adjourn tomeet at noon on Monday next.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.MFUME). Is there objection to the re-quest of the gentleman from Missouri?


DISPENSING WITH CALENDARWEDNESDAY BUSINESS ONWEDNESDAY NEXT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent that the businessin order under the Calendar Wednesdayrule be dispensed with on Wednesdaynext.

Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Missouri?


WAIVING PROVISIONS OF THELEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATIONACT OF 1970 REQUIRING AD-JOURNMENT OF CONGRESS BYJULY 31

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I askunanimous consent to take from theSpeaker's table the Senate a concur-rent resolution (S. Con. Res. 33) towaive the provisions of the LegislativeReorganization Act of 1970 which re-quire the adjournment of the Houseand Senate by July 31, and ask for itsimmediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereobjection to the request of the gen-tleman from Missouri?

There was no objection.Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Clerk will report the Senate concur-rent resolution.

The Clerk read the Senate concur-rent resolution, as follows;

S. CON. RES. 33Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep-

resentatives concurring), That notwithstand-ing the provisions of section 132(a) of theLegislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2U.S.C. 198), as amended by section 461 of theLegislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Pub-lic Law 91-510; 84 Stat. 1193), the Senate andthe House of Representatives shall not ad-journ for a period in excess of three days, or

adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Con-gress have adopted a concurrent resolutionproviding either for an adjournment (in ex-cess of three days) to a day certain, or foradjournment sine die.

The Senate concurrent resolutionwas concurred in.

A motion to reconsider was laid onthe table.

. 1225

THE PRESIDENT ON THE FRONTLINE

(Mr. DORNAN asked and was givenpermission to address the House for 1minute and to revise and extend his re-marks and include extraneous matter.)

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I say tothe House and the 11/ million peoplewho follow the proceedings of thisHouse on C-SPAN, if the Members haveany question why folks in the militaryon active duty and the Reserve andveterans groups cannot stand the sightof Mr. Clinton when he postures infront of military people, here is a clas-sic example in this week's issue ofTime magazine.

"Mack, You And George Go Left;Dave, You Cover Them .. ." It isDavid Gergen, "You Cover Them."

"Commander in Chief Clinton re-cently visited the Korean DMZ."

Imagine, I picked this up in theCloakroom on the day that MatthewRidgway, one of our great commanders,is being buried at Arlington.

Clinton: "I understand that I was ina more forward position than anyPresident had been before," July 11,Seoul. "I walked out further than anyAmerican President ever had onto theBridge of No Return, about 10 yardsfrom the line separating North andSouth Korea * * *" July 11, Honolulu."I was able to take the most forwardposition that any American Presidenthas ever enjoyed, standing on theBridge of No Return about 10 yardsfrom the dividing line * * *" July 11,Pearl Harbor. "I got within about 10yards of the dividing line betweenNorth and South Korea * * *"

Half of this House has been there andstood on the North Korean side at Pan-munjom. At the conclusion of my re-marks I will insert a letter to ColonelHolmes, the infamous letter of Decem-ber 3, 1969, where he says Korea was notan example, "in my opinion," wherethe draft was needed. I also include theletter from Colonel Holmes. Hypocrisy.

TEXT OF BILL CLINTON'S LETTER TO ROTCCOLONEL

I am sorry to be so long in writing. I knowI promised to let you hear from me at leastonce a month, and from now on you will, butI have had to have some time to think aboutthis first letter. Almost daily since my re-turn to England I have thought about writ-ing, about what I want to and ought to say.

First, I want to thank you, not just forsaving me from the draft, but for being sokind and decent to me last summer, when Iwas as low as I have ever been. One thing

which made the bond we struck in good faithsomewhat palatable to me was my high re-gard for you personally. In retrospect, itseems that the admiration might not havebeen mutual had you known a little moreabout me, about my political beliefs and ac-tivities. At least you might have thought memore fit for the draft than for ROTC.

Let me try to explain. As you know, Iworked for two years in a very minor posi-tion on the Senate Foreign Relations Com-mittee. I did it for the experience and thesalary but also for the opportunity, howeversmall, of working every day against a war Iopposed and despised with a depth of feelingI had reserved solely for racism in Americabefore Vietnam. I did not take the matterlightly but studied it carefully, and therewas a time when not many people had moreinformation about Vietnam at hand than Idid.

I have written and spoken and marchedagainst the war. One of the national organiz-ers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a closefriend of mine. After I left Arkansas lastsummer, I went to Washington to work inthe national headquarters of the Morato-rium, then to England to organize the Amer-icans here for demonstrations Oct. 15 andNov. 16.

Interlocked with the war is the draft issue,which I did not begin to consider separatelyuntil early 1968. For a law seminar atGeorgetown I wrote a paper on the legal ar-guments for and against allowing, within theSelective Service System, the classificationof selective conscientious objection for thoseopposed to participation in a particular war,not simply to "participation in war in anyform."

From my work I came to believe that thedraft system itself is illegitimate. No gov-ernment really rooted in limited, parliamen-tary democracy should have the power tomake its citizens fight and kill and die in awar they may oppose, a war which even pos-sibly may be wrong, a war which, in anycase, does not involve immediately the peaceand freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II be-cause the life of the people collectively wasat stake. Individuals had to fight, if the na-tion was to survive, for the lives of theircountrymen and their way of life. Vietnam isno such case. Nor was Korea an examplewhere, in my opinion, certain military ac-tion was justified but the draft was not, forthe reasons stated above.

Because of my opposition to the draft andthe war. I am in great sympathy with thosewho are not willing to fight, kill and maybedie for their country (i.e. the particular pol-icy of a particular government) right orwrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are con-scientious objectors. I wrote a letter of rec-ommendation for one of them to his Mis-sissippi draft board, a letter which I am moreproud of than anything else I wrote at Oxfordlast year. One of my roommates is a draft re-sister who is possibly under indictment andmay never be able to go home again. He isone of the bravest, best men I know. Hiscountry needs men like him more than theyknow. That he is considered a criminal is anobscenity.

The decision not to be a resister and therelated subsequent decisions were the mostdifficult of my life. I decided to accept thedraft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: tomaintain my political viability within thesystem. For years I have worked to preparemyself for a political life characterized byboth practical political ability and concernfor rapid social progress. It is a life I still

17942

July 30, 1993feel compelled to try to leadour system of governmentcorrupt, however dangerousit has been in recent years. (be corrupt, but that is notand if that is true, we areway.)

When the draft came, despivictions, I was having a hardprospect of fighting a war I hagainst, and that is why IROTC was the one way leftpossibly, but not positively,nam and resistance. Going ocation, even coming back tono part in my decision to jback here, and would have bLaw School because there ican do. In fact, I would likable to take a year out per]a small college or work on saction project and in the pwhether to attend law schschool and how to begin puttlearned to use.

But the particulars of mynot nearly as important tociples involved. After I signeter of intent, I began to woncompromise I had made withmore objectionable than thave been, because I had noROTC program in itself andhave done was to protect m;ical harm. Also, I began toceived you, not by lies-thbbut by failing to tell you alwriting now. I doubt that Icoherence to articulate them

At that time, after we hadment and you had sent my 1my draft board, the anguishself-regard and self-confidenchardly slept for weeks and keing compulsively and readintion brought sleep. Finallystayed up all night writingchairman of my draft board,what is in the preceding parahim for trying to help in areally couldn't, and statingdo the ROTC after all anddraft me as soon as possible.

I never mailed the letter, ton me every day until I gotreturn to England. I didn'tbecause I didn't see, in thgoing in the Army and maytnam would achieve anythingthat I had punished myselfI deserved. So I came back tito make something of this seRhodes scholarship.

And that is where I am nowbecause you have been gooda right to know what I thinwriting too in the hope thatone story will help you to uclearly how so many fine peto find themselves still lovinbut loathing the military, toother good men have devotimes, of the best service yomany of us, it is no longer cliice and what is disservice,the conclusion is likely to be

Forgive the length of this 1much to say. There is stillbut it can wait. Please saJones for me.

Merry Christmas.Sincerely,

SEP.Memorandum for Record:

69-059 0-97 Vol. 139 (Pt. 12) 43

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEI. I do not think Subject: Bill Clinton and the University ofis by definition Arkansas ROTC Program:and inadequate There have been many unanswered ques-

The society may tions as to the circumstances surroundingthe same thing. Bill Clinton's involvement with the ROTCall finished any- department at the University of Arkansas.

Prior to this time I have not felt the neces-ite political con- sity for discussing the details. The reason Itime facing the have not done so before is that my poor

lad been fighting physical health (a consequence of participa-contacted you. tion in the Bataan Death March and the sub-

in which I could sequent 31 years internment in Japaneseavoid both Viet- POW camps) has precluded me from gettingon with my edu- into what I felt was unnecessary involve-England, played ment. However, present polls show thatoin ROTC. I am there is the imminent danger to our countryeen at Arkansas of a draft dodger becoming the Commander-s nothing else I in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Unitedaps to reach in States. While it is true, as Mr. Clinton has

ome community stated, that there were many others who

rocess to decide avoided serving their country in the Viet-ool or graduate nam war, they are not aspiring to be theting what I have President of the United States.

The tremendous implications of the possi-personal life are bility of his becoming Commander-in-Chiefme as the prin- of the United States Armed Forces compelsid the ROTC letme now to comment on the facts concerningider whether the Mr. Clinton's evasion of the draft.Smyself was not This account would not have been impera-he draft would tive had Bill Clinton been completely honestinterest in the with the American public concerning thisall I seemed to matter. But as Mr. Clinton replied on a news

yself from phys- conference this evening (September 5, 1992)think I had de- after being asked another particular about

ere were none- his dodging the draft, "Almost everyone con-1 the things I'm cerned with these incidents are dead. I havehad the mental no more comments to make". Since I may bethen. the only person living who can give a firstmade our agree- hand account of what actually transpired, I-D deferment to am obligated by my love for my country andI and loss of my my sense of duty to divulge what actually:e really set in. I happened and make it a matter of record.ept going by eat- Bill Clinton came to see me at my home inig until exhaus- 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the,on Sept. 12 I ROTC program at the University of Arkan-a letter to the sas. We engaged in an extensive, approxi-

saying basically mately two (2) hour interview. At no timeagraph, thanking during this long conversation about his de-

s case where he sire to join the program did he inform me ofthat I couldn't his involvement, participation and actually

would he please organizing protests against the UnitedStates involvement in South East Asia. He

unt I did carry it was shrewd enough to realize that had I beenon the plane to aware of his activities, he would not havemail the letter been accepted into the ROTC program as a

e end, how my potential officer in the United States Army.be going to Viet- The next day I began to receive phone callsexcept a feeling regarding Bill Clinton's draft status. I was

and gotten what informed by the draft board that it was of in-o ngland to try terest to Senator Fullbright's office that Billcond year of my Clinton a Rhodes Scholar, should be admit-

, writing to you ted to the ROTC program. I received several

to me and have such calls. The general message conveyed byk and feel. I am the draft board to me was that Senator

my telling this Fullbright's office was putting pressure on

understand more them and that they needed my help. I then

eople have come made the necessary arrangements to enroll

ig their country Mr. Clinton into the ROTC program at the

which you and University of Arkansas.ited years, life- I was not "saving" him from serving hisu could give. To country, as he erroneously thanked me for inear what is serv- his letter from England (dated December 3,

or if it is clear, 1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes

illegal. Scholar to serve in the military as an officer.etter. There was In retrospect I see that Mr. Clinton had noa lot to be said, intention of following through with hisy hello to Col. agreement to join the Army ROTC program

at the University of Arkansas or to attendthe University of Arkansas Law School. Ihad explained to him the necessity of enroll-

BILL CLINTON. ing at the University of Arkansas as a stu-dent in order to be eligible to take the ROTC

TEMBER 7, 1992. program at the University. He never enrolledat the University of Arkansas, but instead

17943enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford. I be-lieve that he purposely deceived me, usingthe possibility of joining the ROTC as a ployto work with the draft board to delay his in-duction and get a new draft classification.

The December 3rd letter written to me byMr. Clinton, and subsequently taken fromthe files by Lt. Col. Clint Jones, my execu-tive officer, was placed into the ROTC filesso that a record would be available in casethe applicant should again petition to enterinto the ROTC program. The information inthat letter alone would have restricted BillClinton from ever qualifying to be an officerin the United States Military. Even moresignificant was his lack of veracity in pur-posefully defrauding the military by deceiv-ing me, both in concealing his anti-militaryactivities overseas and his counterfeit inten-tions for later military service. These ac-tions cause me to question both his patriot-ism and his integrity.

When I consider the calibre, the bravery,and the patriotism of the fine young soldierswhose deaths I have witnessed, and otherswhose funerals I have attended * * *. When Ireflect on not only the willingness but eager-ness that so many of them displayed in theirearnest desire to defend and serve theircountry, it is untenable and incomprehen-sible to me that a man who was not merelyunwilling to serve his country, but actuallyprotested against its military, should ever bein the position of Commander-in-Chief of ourArmed Forces.

I write this declaration not only for theliving and future generations, but for thosewho fought and died for our country. If spaceand time permitted I would include thenames of the ones I knew and fought with,and along with them I would mention mybrother Bob, who was killed during WorldWar II and is buried in Cambridge, England(at the age of 23, about the age Bill Clintonwas when he was over in England protestingthe war).

I have agonized over whether or not to sub-mit this statement to the American people.But, I realize that even though I served mycountry by being in the military for over 32years, and having gone through the ordeal ofmonths of combat under the worst of condi-tions followed by years of imprisonment bythe Japanese, it is not enough. I'm writingthese comments to let everyone know that Ilove my country more than I do my own per-sonal security and well-being. I will go to mygrave loving these United States of Americaand the liberty for which so many men havefought and died.

Because of my poor physical condition thiswill be my final statement. I will make nofurther comments to any of the media re-garding this issue.

EUGENE J. HOLMES,Colonel, U.S.A., .et.

State of Arkansas,County of Washington,BARBARA J. POWERS,Notary Public.

THE CLINTON BUDGET

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Illinois [Mr. PORTER] isrecognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I takethe floor today to voice the concernand outrage that I and other Ameri-cans feel over Clinton's-Democratbudget plan.

Mr. Speaker, the plan has been soldas a good balance of tax increases/

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEspending cuts which will reduce thedeficit and benefit the economy.

But that is not what it is and thatmost unfortunately is not what it willdo.

The Democrats' plan lacks sufficientspending cuts. It guarantees tax in-creases-several of which are retro-active-but it carries no guarantee ofspending cuts.

This is no way to deal with the defi-cit, restore the economy, or createjobs.

The right approach-given Congress'history of institutional irresponsibil-ity-is to cut spending deep and wide,guaranteeing that cuts are enactedquickly and that new taxes go to defi-cit reduction only.

During confirmation hearings, theadministration seemed to be headed inright direction.

Officials like Panetta said we wouldsee $2 in cuts for every $1 in tax in-creases.

However, the President, afraid of be-coming another Jimmy Carter-an ir-relevant outsider-I believe caved inand allowed himself to be rolled by bigspenders in the Democratic party.

What the American people eventuallygot was far different than that prom-ised.

In May, the House passed a reconcili-ation bill with $2 in taxes for every $1in cuts, the exact opposite of promisesand opposite of what should be done.

The public's response was solidlynegative.

The man in the street, I believe, wasahead of the President on spendingcuts; Clinton was out of touch in thisregard.

The President would not have thisproblem if he had reached out to Re-publicans.

Republicans would have supportedhim on spending cuts where Democratswould not.

Clinton instead ignored the Repub-licans and consequently finds himselfhoping that opposing Democratic fac-tions will reach an agreement whichcan pass.

Deficit reduction is a national, not apartisan issue. That's how Americanpeople view it, but the President appar-ently does not.

The plan's fundamental flaw is a lackof spending cuts.

There are a large number of wastefuland unneeded programs we could cutbefore raising any taxes.

I suggest closing down the RuralElectrification Administration, termi-nating the space station and the SSC-which we cannot afford-stopping Gov-ernment subsidies for grazing, amongmany, many others. Unfortunately, Ibelieve the President caved in on sev-eral of these proposals or neglected tomake them altogether.

The American people should knowthat the plan that will be before Con-gress next week does not terminate a

single program, not one, not even thehoneybee subsidy program.

Mr. Speaker, moreover, 60 percent ofcuts in the Clinton plan supposedlywill come in the last 2 years of its 5-year life.

So these are vulnerable to futurebudget negotiations and probably willnot happen.

We have seen it before.The plan also relies on gimmicks

such as refinancing of Governmentdebt and projected interest savings fordeficit reduction.

Perhaps the worst thing about theplan is the fact that many of its newtaxes go for spending, not deficit reduc-tion.

O 1230The taxes are for new spending, not

deficit reduction. How do we knowthat?

For fiscal 1994, the budget resolutioncontains $300 billion in new taxes anduser fees over 5 years.

During that period, the deficit is sup-posed to fall from $262 billion in 1994 to$201 billion in 1998; but if all the newtaxes and fees went to deficit reductiononly, the deficit would in fact fall to$100 billion in 1998.

In other words, if the plan had a dol-lar-for-dollar match between new taxeson the one hand and deficit reductionon the other, the deficit would be $100billion in 1998, versus $200 billion pro-jected under the plan.

So the new taxes will fund newspending, and lots of it. That is whythis is truly a tax-and-spend plan, nota deficit reduction plan. The label isinaccurate and ought to be made accu-rate. This should be labeled a tax-and-spending plan.

Democrats had a chance to enshrinethe concept of new taxes for deficit re-duction only, but took a pass.

The President, seeing people sour onhis program, offered an amazingly cyn-ical proposal, Mr. Speaker, a deficit re-duction trust fund to hold the plan'snew taxes and spending cuts; but aslong as new taxes are spent, a trustfund does not matter at all. It is justan accounting device with no impactwhatsoever on the deficit.

I proposed, Mr. Speaker, a taxpayerprotection amendment which wouldhave required that new taxes go fordeficit reduction only or else be in-stantly and automatically repealed.

The amendment was endorsed by theAmericans for a Balanced Budget, byCitizens Against Government Waste,by the National Tax Limitation Com-mittee, by Citizens for a Sound Econ-omy, by the U.S. Business and Indus-trial Council, and by the Free CongressFoundation; however, the Rules Com-mittee squelched it, as it did all seriousdebate on reconciliation.

My constituents understand theproblem that the deficit represents. Itis fiscal child abuse. We are mortgag-

ing our children's and grandchildren'sfutures.

The average American starting a ca-reer today will pay $200,000 in extrataxes throughout his or her workinglifetime just to cover his or her part ofthe interest on the debt.

If the Clinton plan is adopted 5 yearsfrom now, they will be paying $250,000in extra taxes.

My constituents would reluctantlysupport higher taxes, if they were guar-anteed that all new taxes would go todeficit reduction; but the Democraticplan does not give them a chance to doso, since it asks higher taxes to sup-port more spending.

In my judgment, the plan is unbal-anced, cynical, unwise, and will under-mine the economy, and that is why Ioppose it.

The President was sent to Washing-ton to lead and to solve the deficitproblem. He can and should do better,much better. He should reach out toRepublicans and forge a bipartisan def-icit reduction plan that cuts spending.Then and only then should we con-template higher taxes for deficit reduc-tion, then and then only.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKERPRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.MFUME). The Chair will advise thosemembers in the gallery that they arehere as guests in the House of Rep-resentatives and would urge them torefrain from any displays of agreementor disagreement during the day's pro-ceedings.

A TRIBUTE TO REGGIE LEWIS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under aprevious order of the House, the gen-tleman from Massachusetts [Mr.TORKILDSEN] is recognized for 5 min-utes.

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, Irise today to speak of a man, a greatathlete and a great American, and astory with a happy beginning and atragic ending.

A young man grew up on the streetsof Baltimore, playing basketball forDunbar High School. In his senior year,he was accepted to attend North-eastern University. Even after severalmajor basketball schools tried to re-cruit him, he stuck by his word andwent to play for the Huskies.

Then, in 1987, the Boston Celticsmade him their first round draftchoice, surprising many, except thosewho saw him play. He had reached forhis dreams and had made them reality.He was going to play professional bas-ketball for one of the most successfulorganizations in any sport.

This was a quiet player, who beganhis career behind great Boston names.But when Larry Bird retired, hestepped forward in his own way, taking

17944 July 30, 1993

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSEthe lead of a team that many thoughtwould go leaderless. He became an NBAAll-Star in 1992, and this team captainwas seen as the core of the New Celticteam, the future of the franchise.

And yet the people who knew himknew he was much more than a greatathlete. He married his college sweet-heart in 1987, and in 1992 became a fa-ther.

He was just beginning a wonderfullysuccessful career and the best years ofhis life were ahead of him.

Then last year, during the playoffs,he collapsed during the first half,missed the rest of the series and had towatch from the sidelines as Boston waseliminated. But he was determined tocome back. He wanted to play thegame he had always loved, a game heplayed so well.

On Tuesday night, while shootingbaskets with a friend, he collapsed onceagain. He was rushed to the hospital,but this time there would be no tomor-row. Reggie Lewis had died of heartfailure.

It is a tragic loss that will remainwith us for a long time. The world haslost a man of family, a man of faith, agood man. He was a real competitor, areal player, but more importantly areal person. Everyone who knew him orsaw him will remember Reggie Lewis.There is no way we can forget.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of ab-sence was granted to:

Mr. LANCASTER (at the request of Mr.GEPHARDT), for today, on account of of-ficial business.

Mr. CRAPO (at the request of Mr.MICHEL), for today, on account of meet-ing with constituents on the Idaho wil-derness bill.

Mr. MCINNIS (at the request of Mr.MICHEL), for today, on account of at-tending a funeral.

Mrs. FOWLER (at the request of Mr.MICHEL), for today, on account of offi-cial business in the district.

Mr. MCDADE (at the request of Mr.MICHEL), for today, on account of ill-ness.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTEDBy unanimous consent, permission to

address the House, following the legis-lative program and any special ordersheretofore entered, was granted to:

(The following Members (at the re-quest of Mr. Goss) to revise and extendtheir remarks and include extraneousmaterial:)

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, for 60 min-utes, on August 3.

Mr. ARMEY, for 60 minutes each day,on August 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Mr. PAXON for 5 minutes, on August3.

Mr. TORKILDSEN for 5 minutes, today.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission torevise and extend remarks was grantedto:

(The following Members (at the re-quest of Mr. Goss) and to include ex-traneous matter:)

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia.Mr. MCKEON.Mr. GOODLING.Mr. FIELDS of Texas.Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut.Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN.(The following Members (at the re-

quest of Mr. ABERCROMBIE) and to in-clude extraneous matter:)

Mr. SWETT.Mr. BONIOR.Ms. SHEPHERD.(The following Member (at the re-

quest of Mr. TORKILDSEN) and to in-clude extraneous matter:

Mrs. SCHROEDER.

BILLS PRESENTED TO THEPRESIDENT

Mr. ROSE, from the Committee onHouse Administration, reported thatthat committee did on the followingdate present to the President, for hisapproval, bills of the House of the fol-lowing titles:

On July 27, 1993:H.R. 847. An act to provide for planning

and design of a National Air and Space Mu-seum extension at Washington Dulles Inter-national Airport.

H.R. 843. An act to withdraw certain landslocated in the Coronado National Forestfrom the mining and mineral leasing laws ofthe United States, and for other purposes.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, Imove that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accord-ingly (at 12 o'clock and 38 minutesp.m.), under its previous order, theHouse adjourned until Monday, August2, 1993, at 12 noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, execu-tive communications were taken fromthe Speaker's table and referred as fol-lows:

1674. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, aletter from the Deputy Secretary ofDefense, transmitting a report on al-lied contributions to the common de-fense, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1928 note;jointly to the Committee on ArmedServices and Foreign Affairs.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ONPUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports ofcommittees were delivered to the Clerkfor printing and reference to the propercalendar, as follows:

17945Mr. DELLUMS: Committee on Armed

Services. H.R. 2401. A bill to authorize appro-priations for fiscal year 1994 for military ac-tivities of the Department of Defense, to pre-scribe military personnel strengths for fiscalyear 1994, and for other purposes, withamendments (Rept. 103-200). Referred to theCommittee of the Whole House on the Stateof the Union.

SUBSEQUENT ACTION ON BILLSINITIALLY REFERRED UNDERTIME LIMITATIONS

Under clause 5 of rule X, the follow-ing actions were taken by the Speaker:

H.R. 1845. Referral to the Committees onNatural Resources and Science, Space, andTechnology extended for a period ending notlater than September 10, 1993.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONSUnder clause 5 of rule X and clause 4

of rule XXII, public bills and resolu-tions were introduced and severally re-ferred as follows:

By Mr. HALL of Texas:H.R. 2811. A bill to authorize certain at-

mospheric, weather, and satellite programsand functions of the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, and for otherpurposes; to the Committee on Science,Space, and Technology.

By Mr. FIELDS of Texas:H.R. 2812. A bill to improve recreational

boating safety; to the Committee on Mer-chant Marine and Fisheries.

By Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER:H.R. 2813. A bill to amend the Public

Health Service Act to establish programs forthe prevention and control of Lyme disease;to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. HUGHES (for himself and Mr.MOORHEAD):

H.R. 2814. A bill to permit the taking effectof certain proposed rules of civil procedure,with modifications; to the Committee on theJudiciary.

By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (forherself, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. GEJDEN-SON, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. SHAYS, andMr. FRANKS of Connecticut):

H.R. 2815. A bill to designate a portion ofthe Farmington River in Connecticut as acomponent of the National Wild and ScenicRivers System; to the Committee on NaturalResources.

By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (forherself, Mr. Goss, Mr. BILIRAKIS, andMr. SUNDQUIST):

H.R. 2816. A bill to amend the Internal Rev-enue Code of 1986 with respect to the treat-ment of long-term care insurance policies,and for other purposes; jointly, to the Com-mittees on Ways and Means and Energy andCommerce.

By Mrs. SCHROEDER:H.R. 2817. A bill to amend the Public

Health Service Act to provide for a nationalsystem to collect health-related data on fa-talities caused by firearms; to the Commit-tee on Energy and Commerce.

By Mr. SYNAR (for himself and Mr.DURBIN):

H.R. 2818. A bill to increase the fee for theenforcement of the Tea Importation Act; tothe Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mrs. VUCANOVICH (for herself, Mr.BALLENGER, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. SMITHof New Jersey, Mr. HYDE, Mr. GING-RICH, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. HOUGHTON,and Mr. CRANE):

July 30, 1993

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE July 30, 1993H.R. 2819. A bill to amend title XI of the

Social Security Act to improve and clarifyprovisions prohibiting misuse of symbols,emblems, or names in reference to Social Se-curity programs and agencies; to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself,Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr. POMBO,Mr. DEAL, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ANDREWSof New Jersey, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BUR-TON of Indiana, Mr. Cox, Mr. INHOFE,Mr. EwING, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. Goss,Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. HANSEN, Mr.HAYES, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. LINDER,Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mrs. LLOYD, Mr.MCINNIS, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr.OXLEY, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. PALLONE,Mr. PARKER, Mr. PAXON, Mr.RAMSTAD, Mr. RAVENEL, Mr.ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROWLAND, Mr.ROYCE, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SOLO-MON, Mr. STUMP, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr.TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. TAY-LOR of Mississippi, Mr. UPTON, Mr.WELDON, Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. CALVERT,and Mr. HERGER):

H.J. Res. 245. Joint resolution proposing anamendment to the Constitution of the Unit-ed States to require three-fifths majoritiesfor bills increasing taxes; to the Committeeon the Judiciary.

By Mr. TRAFICANT:H. Con. Res. 129. Concurrent resolution to

commend Israel and the Israeli SupremeCourt; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsorswere added to public bills and resolu-tions as follows:

H.R. 9: Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida.H.R. 26: Mr. CLAY, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms.

MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY, and Mr. SERRANO.H.R. 62: Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. DE LUGO.H.R. 159: Mr. PORTMAN.H.R. 291: Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut, Mr.

TRAFICANT, and Mr. OBERSTAR.H.R. 324: Mr. GILCHREST.H.R. 535: Mrs. BENTLEY.H.R. 702: Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts and

Mr. YOUNG of Florida.H.R. 787: Mr. GONZALEZ.H.R. 794: Ms. DANNER and Mr.

KNOLLENBERG.H.R. 796: Ms. LOWEY.H.R. 830: Mr. CONDIT.H.R. 967: Mr. MACHTLEY and Mr. HANCOCK.H.R. 1148: Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut and

Mr. GONZALEZ.H.R. 1152: Mr. NADLER.H.R. 1277: Mr. DARDEN and Mr. HANCOCK.H.R. 1354: Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. DE LUGO,

Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. DELLUMS, Ms. NORTON,Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. GILMAN,and Mr. FROST.

H.R. 1566: Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas.H.R. 1923: Ms. MCKINNEY.H.R. 2336: Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mr. EM-

ERSON, and Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas.H.R. 2602: Mr. GLICKMAN.H.R. 2640: Mr. PORTER.H.J. Res. 30: Mr. PORTMAN.H.J. Res. 157: Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. LIGHTFOOT,

Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. HERGER, Mr. PETRI,

Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. BAKERof California, Mr. DE LA GARZA, Mr. SERRANO,Ms. MALONEY, and Ms. MCKINNEY.

H.J. Res. 184: Mr. COOPER, Mr. MCDERMOTT,Mr. MURTHA, Mr. TUCKER, Mr. SMITH of Or-egon, Mr. TOWNS, and Mr. PASTOR.

H.J. Res. 185: Mr. ACKERMAN, Mrs. KEN-NELLY, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. MINETA, Ms. MOL-INARI, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr.MURPHY, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. NEAL of Massa-chusetts, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Mr.PAYNE of Virginia, Mr. RAHALL, Mr.RAVENEL, Mr. SABO, Mr. SARPALIUS, Mr.SERRANO, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. TAN-NER, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mrs.UNSOELD, and Mr. WAXMAN.

H.J. Res. 188: Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. EVANS, Mr.FIsH, Mr. HAMILTON, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HEFNER,Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. LEHMAN, Mrs. MINK, Ms.MOLINARI, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. SMITH of New Jer-sey, Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. SMITH of Or-egon, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAZIO,Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOIINSON of Texas, Mr.MATSUI, and Mr. MCHUGH.

H. Con. Res. 6: Mr. KIM.H. Con. Res. 88: Mrs. MORELLA.H. Con. Res 120: Mr. KIM.H. Res. 135: Miss COLLINS of Michigan.H. Res. 165: Mr. BLUTE, Mr. CAMP, Mr.

UPTON, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Ms. THURMAN, Mr.LEWIS of Florida, and Mr. HOAGLAND.

AMENDMENTS

Under clause 6 of rule XXIII, pro-posed amendments were submitted asfollows:

H.R. 2150

By Mr. TRAFICANT:-At the end of the bill add the following:SEC. . COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

No funds appropriated pursuant to this Actmay be expended by an entity unless the en-tity agrees that in expending the assistancethe entity will comply with sections 2through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as the "BuyAmerican Act").SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT RE-

GARDING NOTICE.(a) PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIP-

MENT AND PRODUCTS.-In the case of anyequipment or products that may be author-ized to be purchased with financial assist-ance provided under this Act, it is the senseof the Congress that entities receiving suchassistance should, in expending the assist-ance, purchase only American-made equip-ment and products.

(d) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE.-In providing financial assistance under thisAct, the head of each Federal agency shallprovide to each recipient of the assistance anotice describing the statement made in sub-section (a) by the Congress.SEC. . PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS.

If it is finally determined by a court orFederal agency that a person intentionallyaffixed a label bearing a "Made in America"inscription, or any inscription with the samemeaning, to any product sold in or shippedto the United States that is not made in theUnited States, such person shall be deter-

mined to be ineligible to receive any con-tract or subcontract made with funds pro-vided pursuant to this Act, pursuant to thedebarment, suspension, and ineligibility pro-cedures described in sections 9.400 through9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations:

H.R. 2330By Mr. McCOLLUM:

-Page 30, after line 3, add the following:SEC. 306. NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON

COUNTERTERRORISM.(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-It is the sense of the

Congress that the President should establisha National Task Force on Counterterrorismcomprised of the following nine members:the Deputy Attorney General of the UnitedStates, the Deputy Director of Central Intel-ligence, the Coordinator for Terrorism of theDepartment of State, an Assistant Secretaryof Commerce as designated by the Secretaryof Commerce, the National Security Advisorfor Special Operations Low Intensity Con-flict, the Assistant Secretary of Treasury forEnforcement, the Director of the Federal Bu-reau of Investigation, the Vice Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, and an AssistantSecretary of Transportation appointed bythe Secretary of Transportation. The DeputyAttorney General and the Deputy Director ofCentral Intelligence should serve as the Co-Chairs of the Task Force which will reviewall counterterrorism activities of the intel-ligence community of the United StatesGovernment.

(b) DUTIES.-The National Task Force onCounterterrorism should prepare a report tothe Congress which should:

(1) define terrorism, both domestic andinternational;

(2) identify federal government activities,'programs, and assets, which may be utilizedto counter terrorism;

(3) assess the processing, analysis, and dis-tribution of intelligence on terrorism andmake recommendations for improvement;

(4) make recommendations on appropriatenational policies, both preventive and reac-tive, to counter terrorism;

(5) assess the coordination among law en-forcement, intelligence and defense agenciesinvolved in counter terrorism activities andmake recommendations concerning how co-ordination can be improved;

(6) assess whether there should be morecentralized operational control over federalgovernment activities, programs, and assetsutilized to counter terrorism, and if so, makerecommendations concerning how thatshould be achieved.

(c) SUPPORT.-Sufficient full time staff tosupport and fulfill duties outlined in para-graph (b) should be provided.

(d) REPORT.-The Task Force will report toCongress no later than six months after thedate of enactment of this Act as to the re-view and recommendations outlined in para-graph (b) and how those recommendationsmight be implemented. Each 120 days there-after for the remainder of the two year pe-riod beginning on the date of the initial Re-port, the Task Force will report to Congresson the progress of the implementation of anyrecommendations.

17946

July 30, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

SENATE-Friday, July 30, 1993(Legislative day of Wednesday, June 30, 1993)

The Senate met at 9 a.m., on the ex-piration of the recess, and was called toorder by the Honorable BENNIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, a Senator fromthe State of Colorado.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend RichardC. Halverson, D.D., offered the follow-ing prayer:

Let us pray:So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God created he him; maleand female created he them.-Genesis1:27. Therefore shall a man leave his fa-ther and his mother, and shall cleave untohis wife: and they shall be one flesh.-Genesis 2:24.

Eternal God, help us to appreciatethe reality of the image of God in hu-mans-not in males, not in females-but in the male/female union, throughwhich, by the power of reproduction,God's creative power is manifest. Helpus comprehend the significance ofmale/female bonding in marriage, andto take seriously this relationship.

Gracious Father, this has been a verybusy week, because of which family re-lationships may have suffered. What-ever else we do this weekend, may wegive priority to our families and exer-cise our God-given responsibility tospouse and children. Where necessary,may this weekend be a time of healingand reconciliation-a time of familystrength and love.

We pray in the name of Jesus Whowas incarnate Love. Amen.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTINGPRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will please read a communicationto the Senate from the President protempore [Mr. BYRD].

The legislative clerk read the follow-ing letter:

U.S. SENATE,

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,Washington, DC, July 30, 1993.

To the Senate:Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of

the Standing Rules of the Senate, I herebyappoint the Honorable BEN NIGHTHORSECAMPBELL, a Senator from the State of Colo-rado, to perform the duties of the Chair.

ROBERT C. BYRD,President pro tempore.

Mr. CAMPBELL thereupon assumedthe chair as Acting President pro tem-pore.

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIMEThe ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Under the previous order, theleadership time is be reserved.

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, ANDGENERAL GOVERNMENT APPRO-PRIATIONS ACT, 1994The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Under the previous order, theSenate will now resume considerationof H.R. 2403, which the clerk will re-port.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A bill (H.R. 2403) making appropriationsfor the Treasury Department, the UnitedStates Postal Service, the Executive Officeof the President, and certain IndependentAgencies, for the fiscal year ending Septem-ber 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

The 'Senate resumed the consider-ation of the bill.

Pending:Simon Amendment No. 739, to provide that

the Department of the Treasury establishand administer a program requiring the pay-ment of an annual fee for the processing ofapplications (including renewals) for licensesto engage in the business of dealing in fire-arms.

AMENDMENT NO. 739

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. There will now be 2 hours of de-bate on the Simon amendment.

The Senator from Arizona [Mr.DECONCINI].

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, wehave pending before us today theamendment by the Senator from Illi-nois [Mr. SIMON] that would increasethe fees that are charged for Federalfirearms licensing.

Mr. President, this is a matter whichit is unfortunate we cannot agree on,because over the period of years that Ihave worked on this bill-and it hasbeen many-we have, indeed, failed toaddress the costs to the Federal Gov-ernment to license legitimate gun deal-ers. The Senator from Illinois today isoffering, I think, a reasonable increase.

If you are paying $10 today, which isthe license fee for gun dealers, and to-morrow or when this bill becomes ef-fective, if this amendment passes, it in-creases to $375, you might say that isone hefty increase. But let it be noted,I believe-I am sure the Senator fromIdaho can correct me-there has beenno fee increase since 1968 when the $10fee was set.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes, that is right.Mr. DECONCINI. And inflation

alone-I have not calculated it-but I

am sure inflation alone would require asubstantial increase if it were justpegged on the CPI.

It is unfortunate that we have tostruggle for this. The National RifleAssociation, which is a group whichuntil recently I have had a very re-warding relationship with, and I stilldo respect many of their officers andcertainly their members, including myfriend from Idaho. The NRA has onmany occasions indicated that there isroom to increase the licensing fee.That is a burden that should be borneby the dealers who sell guns.

As a matter of fact, I believe in thepast 12 months representatives of NRAtestified that it supports an increase tothe actual cost to the Bureau of Alco-hol, Tobacco and Firearms, and mybest estimate from the ATF is at least$500 per license.

So the Senator from Illinois hastaken a very bold step. His first pro-posal, I believe, was to increase the feeby over $700, and there was an outcrythat that was too much, that was morethan, in fact, the cost of licensingwould be and that raising money fromthis user fee ought not to be a revenuegenerator.

Of course, that is a debatable issue.We have many user fees that are reve-nue generators. The one that I havefought against and lost is one to im-pose substantial fees on filing of pat-ents where it has gone up to $2,000where it used to be only a few hundreddollars.

In fact, the funds raised from thosefees are not all used to finance the Pat-ent Office but, in fact, go into the gen-eral fund of the Treasury. I think thisis unfortunate because, first of all,there is a public interest that somepublic funds be spent to encourage cre-ative ingenuity which results in newinventions.

But having said that, we are facedwith the reality of having hundreds ofthousands of gun dealers, and we areasking them to pay a slight increase. Isay slight-$10 to $375 may not seemslight, but when you look at the cost ofinstituting and carrying out compli-ance activities by the Bureau of Alco-hol, Tobacco and Firearms, and theproposal by the Senator from Illinois, Ithink it is slight. It does not evencover the full cost to ATF.

Some will say, as was said last night,that 75,000 small business people will beput out of business if this amendmentis adopted. I doubt that, Mr. President,I rather doubt that. I do not know ofany study that was conducted to indi-cate that that is the case.

® This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

17947

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 30, 1993I know many gun dealers, and I have

gone to numerous gun shows wherethey spread their wares out. Some-times it is business, sometimes it is ahobby, and sometimes it is to simplyexchange anecdotes and historicalfacts about the weapons that are there.A lot of sociability is carried on thereand it is a very productive and reward-ing experience, even for an observerwho goes there and talks to the dif-ferent people, the customers as well asthe gun sellers.

To think that raising this fee to$375-and I do not care if it is $375 or$275 or $210 or what have you-thepoint here is there is a legitimate, jus-tified reason to increase this fee, andthis is as good a time as any. It prob-ably should have been universal on aconsumer price index basis, since 1968;it would probably be $1,200 or $1,300today if that were the case and nobodywould be complaining and we wouldnot be here today.

So this is not an attack on the sec-ond amendment right to bear or pos-sess arms. Nobody is going to be pro-hibited from owning a gun under thisamendment. If you are a gun dealerand do not have the $375, then you aregoing to have to save it or borrow it.That is all. You are not going to haveto give up your rights under the Con-stitution to bear and possess arms bythe fact that the fee may be increasedfrom $10 to $375.

So I think the proposal by the Sen-ator from Illinois is right on target, touse a phrase, in dealing with the Na-tional Rifle Association. I think it is aproper proposal on this bill. It would bebetter, I might say, if it were offeredon an authorization bill. But that isnot the way this place works.

Last night, we had a huge debate onauthorizing certain Federal buildingsand there will be other authorizationquestions brought up and points oforder on appropriations bill as we gothrough this process.

So it is my hope that the Senate willadopt the amendment of the Senatorfrom Illinois to increase the fee. It is areasonable fee.

I thank him for bringing it here. Ithank him for his usual expert way andthe congeniality with which he pre-sents his case.

Senator SIMON is not one who saysnever. He is not one that says I have tohave the whole pie my way; or I haveto have the whole loaf of bread; it hasto be totally the Simon way or it willnot go.

He has literally compromised 50 per-cent already. He raises a valid issue,one that is justified and infringes on noone's constitutional rights whatsoever.

I truly hope the Senate will adoptthe amendment of the Senator from Il-linois.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Who yields time?

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, whocontrols the time?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Senator SIMON and SenatorCRAIG.

Mr. DECONCINI. Let me thank theSenator from Illinois for yielding methe time without even asking.

Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleaguefrom Arizona, who uses such commonsense here in this body and in the com-mittee on which I serve with him. Ihave come to have great respect andadmiration for my colleague from Ari-zona. He is an extremely constructiveMember of this body.

I yield myself such time as I mayconsume.

Mr. President, first of all, yesterdayone of my colleagues portrayed this astaking rights away from John Q. Citi-zen by this kind of an increase.

First, again by way of background,the ATF said to me the cost for doinga proper job will be $375 to $500. I tookthe more conservative of those twonumbers.

Let us take a look at some of thepeople who now get licenses.

Federal firearms licensee David Tay-lor, a Bronx man with a long record ofmisdemeanors and an indictment formurder at age 16, ordered more than500 guns from Ohio, which he sold toNew York City drug dealers.

Here is another.More than a dozen federally licensed

dealers in Detroit have been chargedwith providing more than 2,000 fire-arms to criminals in the city.

From February to June 1990, Detroitkitchen table dealer McClinton Thom-as ordered hundreds of handguns andsold them off the books, including 90guns to a big-time dope dealer.

Here is another.During a 6-month period in 1990, Gus-

tavo Salazar, a federally licensed gundealer in Los Angeles, purchased morethan 1,500 guns which he sold to gangmembers and other individuals. AnATF check on 1,165 of these handgunsshowed that only four had been reg-istered under California law.

And you can go on with these illus-trations.

My colleague from Idaho may be ab-solutely correct when he says 99 per-cent of those who have gun licenses areresponsible people.

Let us just assume that is correct.That means 1 percent, 2,300, are abus-ing their privileges and are out therevirtually not getting checked.

No one checks the records becausethey just do not have the resources todo it. It costs $10 a year to get a li-cense. It cost $15 a year to join the Na-tional Rifle Association. We have sim-ply made it too easy and we are notchecking up.

That is why the police organizationshave endorsed this particular step.

We have a choice of going with thegun dealers who are the gun dealersyou see in the local stores. They haveendorsed this legislation, because they

are tired-as one of them told me onthe phone: "I am tired of turning downsomeone who should not have a gunand then we see the police arrest himand he buys a gun from somebody whosells guns out of the trunk of his car."

It is endorsed by the police associa-tion. I think this really makes sense. Itdoes not take one gun away from anycitizen in this country. It simply saysthe ATF ought to have the ability tocheck up on what is going on.

Right now, they do not have the re-sources even to do the fundamentalthing of checking police records oncethey are on a computer-and a lot ofpolice records are not on the com-puter-and to go to a place that wantsto get a license and say: Where did youbuy these guns? Where do you sellthem?

Once out of 20 years you will be in-spected now on the average. We arejust asking for trouble. And of course,we are getting trouble.

Very interesting, a hearing was held,contrary to what the Senator fromTexas said yesterday on the floor, ahearing was held. Senator DAVID PRYORheld the hearing. At the end of thehearing, after hearing the pros andcons, he came on as a cosponsor of thelegislation. It is very, very clear thatwe need this.

My colleague from Idaho said thatthis is going to encourage the blackmarketing of guns. One of the chargesis: Well, people do not buy from legaldealers now anyway.

Almost all the guns that criminalsbuy are now purchased legally. That isone of the little facts that is not widelyunderstood.

I think it is time that we recognizethat we have a problem. And one of theproblems is those who sell guns whoare never inspected.

Here is a chance to do somethingthat does not take one gun away fromany person who now owns a gun.

I might add, even the National RifleAssociation, when they testified at thehearing, said they recognize somechanges had to take place. This is a ra-tional thing.

Finally, Mr. President, the figures inred that you see here are the number oflicensees. Down in blue, which you canbarely see, those are the inspections.You know, we are just asking for trou-ble.

Here is another illustration. Theseare the residential sales, kitchen tablesales, trunk sales out of your car, peo-ple who go to hotel rooms.

These are the retail commercial loca-tions, 18 percent-those stores in Mon-tana, in Colorado, in Illinois, in Idaho,and in Arizona.

And these are some other type ofnonretail commercial locations, mightbe a real estate office or somethinglike that.

Now there are a great many peoplewho sell from their homes, who do it

17948

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAT

responsibly. We do not stop that. Butwe say the taxpayer ought to stop sub-sidizing this.

I see my friend from Montana on thefloor. He is opposed to subsidies in gen-eral. Right now, the taxpayers sub-sidize the licensing of dealers. Weought to put it on a cost-free basis, asfar as the Federal Government is con-cerned.

ATF says doing a proper job will cost$375 to $500 a year. I have taken thelower of these figures.

I think this amendment makes sense,Mr. President. I hope my colleagueswill agree it is time that we take rea-sonable steps on this problem of weap-ons in our society.

Mr. President, I reserve the remain-der of my time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Who yields time? The Senatorfrom Idaho [Mr. CRAIG] is recognized.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as thisissue and the amendment of my col-league from Illinois is debated thismorning, it is a debate resulting fromthe Gun Control Act of 1968 in which itbecame the concern of the U.S. Con-gress and the citizens of this countryat that time that there was a need tocreate a licensure process, not to con-trol guns or to control access to guns,but to establish an effective paper trailby which, if a gun were used illegally,it might be possible to track the sourceof that gun and to draw conclusionsfrom that. That was the intent. That iswhy we have that law.

That law has been amended byMcClure-Volkmer since that time, butit is very important, I think, we under-stand that as we debate that this morn-ing. Are we or are we not changing theintent of the 1968 Gun Control Act? Ihope that is not the case. It should notbe an effort to restrict anything. Itclearly should be an effort to be able todetect, to be able to screen, to be ableto determine the wise and responsibleuse of a Federal firearms license.

BATF in testimony this year beforeCongress said that they inspect ap-proximately 10 percent a year. And lessthan 1 percent are found to be in viola-tion. And those licenses are revoked. Ifthey inspected 20 or 30 or 40 percent ayear, would that less than 1 percent goup? The odds are it would probably not.No, my colleague from Illinois is rightand those were my figures I quoted lastnight, some 2,300 by that percentage.

Is that an anomaly? No. That iscalled normal action. My guess is morethan 1 percent of those who have driv-ers' licenses violate traffic laws atsome time, and if they could be caught,they would probably have their driver'slicense revoked. But the vast majorityof the weapons that are on the streetsof America today that are being usedin the commission of crimes are notsold by licensed dealers. Those trunksales, those motel room sales, thoseback alley sales my colleague from Illi-

nois refers to are not handled-let merepeat-are not handled by Federalfirearm licensed individuals. They arehandled by black marketeers for onemotive only-profit. The reason theyare allowed to do it is because they arenot caught today. That is human na-ture. That is called law enforcement.That is not called building up another300 people inside BATF for the purposeof screening those who make applica-tion.

At this time let me yield 10 minutesto my colleague from Montana for thepurposes of debate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The Senator from Montana [Mr.BURNS] is recognized.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair and Ithank my friend from Idaho. I alsothank my friend from Illinois whostudies these issues very thoroughlyand establishes a very good argumentand really believes in what he is doing.I have to say at this point he might bea little bit misled.

Let us think about the theory of whya license. Livestock dealers in mostStates have to have a license to dobusiness. I think in Montana it costs$25 a year. That in no way covers theexpense of an audit of a livestock deal-er, and they are audited every year.The purpose of the license is the soci-ety of that State says we should haveaccess to the activities of an individualor company that has an opportunity todo harm to the society in question. Sosociety says yes, you must have a li-cense so we know who you are and wecan take a look at what you are doing,through that license, and is it in con-cert with what we have in mind in ourown communities.

The license was just a pretext-youhad to have it to do business. Let ustake a bond, a livestock dealer's bond.I think because the Chair is from Colo-rado, and because of the ranching in-terests of my good friend from Idaho,they understand, to have a $50,000 bondto deal in cattle when you can buy amillion dollars worth in one day-whatis a $50,000 bond? It is nothing. It doesnot protect anybody. But it gives theregulators access to our records. Arewe doing the right thing? That was thepurpose of licensing.

When society decides that we have tohave access to your records, that is forthe good of society, and society has de-cided to expend money so it can dowhatever it needs to with that access.

I would say this is, under anotherguise, a way to tax without calling it atax. It is a way we say we have innova-tive and imaginative ways to tax butwe have no imagination, no innovativeways to cut our costs.

In the case of the ATF, I would haveto hold up the experiment at Waco, TX,and say I am not real sure they needmore money, the way they handledthat. But from $10 a year to $375 a year,for my people who go to gun shows andhandle antique firearms?

July 30, 1993 E 17949We must remember, if I am a dealer

and the Senator from Illinois wants tobuy an antique firearm from me at oneof those shows, the paperwork is thesame as if he bought a hunting firearmin a gun store. He has to register theweapon the same way and the cost isthe same to both the buyer and theseller.

So when society says you must havea license, that gives the authorities away to know where you are, who youare, how you conduct your activities.And society also has made the decisionthat whatever that costs, we will payfor that access. We have to pay for thataccess.

So I want to be very cautious hereunless there is another motive, why weraise this license fee. Because the ma-jority of people-when the Senator heldup his chart, it makes my case-themajority of people are people who go togun shows, and we have quite a few ofthem in the West. They are not onlydone as a hobby, but the man who livesand works on a ranch, he has quite acollection, he wants to maybe subsidizehis income on a weekend show, but hepays for a place to show his wares. Healso foots that financial responsibility.

But let us not get away from the realreasons of licensing. It is for the pur-pose of access to one's records. I canattest to that. I have been auditedevery year. The auditors come down,they say, "You are a livestock dealer.You are an auctioneer. Have you beendoing business the way we think youshould?" It is for the protection of theproducer or the consigner in the case ofa livestock license. It is so we will notget in such a financial condition wewill not only buy their cattle but wewill run off with the cattle and themoney.

So we have to have access to you onan audit. That is all that $25 licensedoes. It buys access for the protectionof the rest of society. And society hasmade the determination that, yes, thatis worth it to us for our own protec-tion. Unless we have changed the pur-pose, why are we going from a $10 feeto a $375 fee? And we should call thatexactly what it is. It is an area inwhich we tax-another innovative waywe do it.

So I urge my colleagues to take areal look at this and why we are op-posed to this fee. I think the NRA, andthe gun dealers, the ones I have talkedto last night on the telephone after Iwent home-yes, they say, there shouldbe some reform. Yes, they would pay ahigher fee. But from $10 a year to $375is a pretty fair jump. Maybe we oughtto have a hearing on this. I think wecan gain some more funds for ATF, andthe Treasury, to administer this. Theyare willing to do that. But not a draco-nian measure, a jump like we havehere, and give America the wrong im-pression of what we are trying to do.

Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 30, 1993

Mr. BURNS. I will.Mr. SIMON. I have heard some great

speeches from my colleague from Mon-tana on the problems of welfare. ATFsays that it costs $375 to $500 to do anadequate inspection. Unless we changethe costs of doing an inspection, we endup with welfare for gun dealers. That iswhat we have right now.

Is my colleague from Montana sup-porting welfare for gun dealers?

Mr. BURNS. I will advise my goodfriend from Illinois that, no, I am not,but that was a decision made from so-ciety that we should license these folksfor the protection of the society. Soci-ety made that decision. The gun deal-ers did not make that decision; societymade it for them.

Mr. SIMON. But if my colleague willyield again, do you not think we oughtto cover the cost of doing this; that thetaxpayers should not have to foot thebill for the inspections for gun dealers?That is all we are trying to do.

Mr. BURNS. Then I advise the Sen-ator from Illinois, the taxpayer madethe decision to license and to audit. Hehas to expect it does not come fornothing. That is what I am saying. Thetaxpayer made that decision, and hehas to expect that there are certaincosts incurred in doing those auditsand those inspections because it is forthe good of all society, not for maybesome other reasons. That is what I amsaying.

I am saying here society has decidedor the taxpayer has decided that theywant this done. So there are costs tothe taxpayers, and that is what I amsaying, on the majority of issues thatcome before this body.

If we would be truthful and go to thetaxpayers and say, "We can provideyou this program, but it is going tocost you X amount of dollars. Now, doyou still want the program?" We havenot done that very much. We have notbeen up front with our taxpayers verymuch.

SI know we reregulated the cable in-dustry last year. They said, "Isn't thatwonderful? We are going to get lowercable rates." "We are going to regulateyou because we are going to get betterservice and lower rates," and neitherone is going to be true, but we appro-priated $11 million of taxpayers' moneyto rewrite the rules of regulation andnow all the taxpayers of America aregoing to pay that increased rate incable rates.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. BURNS. That is where we go onthis. I thank the Senator from Illinoisfor his very good questions. We willhave a cup of coffee and talk somemore about this on what taxpayers de-mand, what society demands, and whattaxpayers have to pay for it.

I thank my friend from Idaho. I yieldthe floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield 10minutes to the Senator from Califor-nia.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The Senator from California isrecognized for 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator from Illinois for yieldingme time, and I thank him for his veryexcellent work on this commonsenseamendment which I am very pleased tocosponsor.

As we know, this amendment willraise the annual licensing fee for fire-arms dealers to $375. The funds raisedfrom that fee would give the ATF thetools it needs to finance more thoroughexaminations of firearms dealers.

I say to my friend from Montana, ifyou ask the taxpayers if they think itis important to have these inspections,I believe they would say yes, and I fur-ther believe they would say that thatprocedure should not be subsidized bythe taxpayers but paid for by the peo-ple who are making a profit from sell-ing guns. That is all this Senator issuggesting: that this is a pay-as-you-goamendment.

The current fee of $10 a year is ajoke. It was set in 1968. I think this feeis due to be raised.

Senator SIMON has not pulled thenumber of $375 out of the hat. He hasasked the ATF what it costs them forthese inspections, and the number hehas put forward makes a good deal ofsense.

By way of comparison, Mr. President,it is more expensive to get two ticketsto a movie than it is to get a Federallicense to sell a gun, and the juniorSenator from Illinois said yesterday itcosts more money to get a license to bea hairdresser than it does to get a li-cense to sell a gun. I know sometimesit does get a little dangerous in thehair salon, but basically you come outof it just fine.

There are 287,000 firearms dealers inAmerica, an increase of 113,000 since1980-an increase of 113,000 firearmsdealers since 1980. This means thatthere is one firearms dealer for every1,000 Americans, and that means thereare more gun dealers in America thanthere are gas stations.

Obviously, it is very difficult for theATF to inspect 287,000 gun dealers. Yet,can we do what the Senator from Mon-tana suggests? Can we simply say,Well, let us just walk away, close oureyes, and hope everybody is good andhonest?

Unfortunately, Mr. President, thatwould be closing our eyes to the truth.We know that this kind of a fee wouldreduce the number of arms dealersmaybe to 70,000. It would be a giantstep toward safety because it would beeasier to audit and inspect a smallernumber of gun dealers.

I think we need to look at the num-ber of guns we have in America today:200 million guns; in California, 559,000

guns. And we have to look at what theATF has been able to do when they getto work and do their job.

A federally licensed dealer in OrangeCounty, CA, supplied guns to theFourth Reich Skinheads who were plot-ting to kill Rodney King and blow upthe First African Methodist EpiscopalChurch in Los Angeles. That was a fed-erally licensed gun dealer, Mr. Presi-dent, who sold those weapons to theskinheads. It was not some back-alleydealer.

During a 6-month period in 1990, afederally licensed gun dealer in LosAngeles purchased more than 1,500guns which he sold to gang membersand other individuals. An ATF checkon 1,016 of these handguns showed thatonly 4 had been registered properly.

So, Mr. President, that was not aback-alley, underground dealer. It wasa federally licensed dealer who, in a pe-riod of 6 months, purchased more than1,500 guns which he sold to gang mem-bers.

Then there is a 22-year-old gun deal-er, a convicted drug dealer and felonwho sold guns, including at least 10high-powered semiautomatic pistols toteenage gang members in Boston.

Then there are more than a dozenfederally licensed dealers in Detroitwho have been charged with providingmore than 2,000 firearms to criminalsin that city. There is a federally li-censed dealer in Baltimore who soldmore than 300 handguns, fewer thanhalf of which were properly recordedand at least 14 of which has turned upat Baltimore crime scenes. That feder-ally licensed dealer took out classifiedads in the Baltimore Sun advertisingto semiautomatic dealers. Not a back-alley, underground, unlicensed dealer,but a federally licensed dealer that theATF was able to crack down on.

A firearms dealer in Texas falsifiedhis records to conceal the diversion ofover 2,000 firearms to Mexican nation-als, people who were major firearmstraffickers.

A firearms dealer in North Carolinaprovided between 6,000 and 10,000 hand-guns to the black market after alteringthe serial numbers of the handguns.

So, Mr. President, we are talkingabout federally licensed gun dealerswho are doing these things. Are all ofthem doing these things? Of course not.But some are, and the result is violenceand death in America.

The ATF is telling us, "We can doour job, but we cannot do it when wehave 287,000 dealers and we cannot do itif we do not have enough funds.". So the Senator from Illinois is look-ing at a problem. He is seeing itsquarely, as he always does, and he isputting forward a solution that makesa lot of sense.

Mr. President, the current system en-courages people to file applications be-cause it is so cheap to do so even ifthey have no intention of actually

17950


going into the firearms business. Manyof these persons use the license to ac-quire guns at wholesale prices for theirpersonal use, or to circumvent local orState restrictions regarding waitingperiods or frequency of purchase. So,these dealers-for $10-are able to cir-cumvent the law in a way that makesit virtually impossible for the ATF todo its job.

If we believe in the laws of the Unit-ed States of America, and we have togive law enforcement the tools theyneed. Otherwise, we will have a situa-tion similar to our illegal immigrationproblem in that we do not enforce ourlaws. So if we are going to decide thatwe want to keep laws on the books,then we need to enforce those laws.

Mr. President, this amendment willnot stop Johnny from getting a shot-gun. Now, I listened to this debate lastnight, and the Senator from Texas,[Mr. GRAMM], talked a lot about John-ny being able to have a shotgun. Thereis nothing in this amendment that willstop Johnny from having that shotgun,or from being taught to use it properlyby his dad or his mom or his aunt orhis uncle or his grandma or hisgrandpa. We all agree, I know, on allsides of this issue, that if and whenJohnny gets a shotgun, he should betaught to respect it and use it prop-erly.

This amendment is not about Johnnygetting a shotgun, but it is about someother people named John. It is aboutJohn Hinckley, who was able to go andpurchase a gun easily and shoot aPresident and put James Brady into awheelchair.

In October 1980 John Hinckley wasarrested for carrying three guns aboardan airplane in Nashville, TN, yet 2 dayslater he walked into a pawnshop inDallas and bought a revolver. So it isabout that John. It is about Gian Ferriat 101 California Street, who burst intoa law office and killed another John,John Scully, a friend of my family, anda host of other people. And there is aconnection between this fine amend-ment and what happened at 101 Califor-nia. It is not about Johnny carrying ashotgun. It is about John Hinckley andGian Ferri and others.


Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 30 seconds, ifI might, from the Senator.

Mr. SIMON. I yield an additionalminute to the Senator from California.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The Senator from California.

Mrs. BOXER. Like John Hinckley,Gian Ferri used a fake address to buy aweapon of his choice, a Tech DC-9. Sowe are talking about licensed gun deal-ers, a legitimate business that we feelwe need to police.

I will say to my friends on the otherside of this issue, sometimes I reallywonder why they oppose these com-monsense approaches to this problem. I

wish to say from the bottom of myheart, with friendship and with a colle-gial attitude to them, there have to besome times that we can get togetherand join hands here, and I say this isone of those times.

I yield back my time.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. Who yields time?Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-

pore. The Senator from Idaho.Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Sen-

ator from California has just made avery important and, I am sure, sincere,emotional appeal that this particularamendment will take guns out of thehands of people who are perpetratingcrime across America by raising a li-censure fee, the streets of America willbecome safer, that the Johnnys in theboard rooms will not be shot. How pos-sibly can that be? How possibly can a$375 fee begin to change the humanmind, begin to change human nature,begin--

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?He asked a question.

Mr. CRAIG. To change the very emo-tional thing that produces a killer. Youcould take all of the guns off thestreets of America, and you would findthat humans would still be attemptingto kill humans. They would not beusing guns because they would not beavailable. They might be using sticks.More important, they would probablybe using stones.

One percent of those who hold Fed-eral firearm licenses are determined tobe misusing those licenses. Now, thatis one percent or about 2,300, and yetthere are thousands and thousands ofblack-market dealers that are puttingguns into the hands of criminals forthe purpose of using them in the com-mission of a crime.

In the State of the Senator fromCalifornia, they have some of thetoughest gun laws. They have a majorwaiting period in which backgroundchecks are supposed to be accom-plished, and yet in that State there arecrimes committed by guns, those gunsin the hands of criminals who, believeit or not, went through those back-ground checks, slipped through theState laws.

I guess what I am suggesting to theSenator from California is it is not aperfect world and this amendment willnot make it more perfect. I do notblame her for her concern about thecrimes of America that are being com-mitted with the use of a gun. I wish tosee thorough inspections. We must doadequate background checks. That isan important part of what we are doinghere. That was why we created the GunControl Act in 1968, and that is why wehave reviewed it on occasion and madeadjustments in it.

I am concerned when it is proposedthat to the some 300-plus inspectors wenow have at BATF we.want to add an-

other 300 and send a squad of 600 menand women out across America tobegin what I hope is a legitimate proc-ess.

Now, after 1968, it was not a legiti-mate process. We found that BATF wasbursting, uninvited or without inspec-tion warrants, into the homes of pri-vate citizens who had gun collectionsand confiscating guns.

We went through all of that in Amer-ica. We went through some direct vio-lations of constitutional rights becausewe had incorporated an army of BATFinspectors, and as a result of that wehad to change the laws because Ameri-cans said, no, there is a right and a re-sponsibility here, but there is not a re-sponsibility to take away a right. Thatis the kind of thing that was happen-ing.

In the streets of Los Angeles, law-abiding citizens fled to the gun storesto get guns to protect themselves whenlocal law enforcement agencies brokedown in their ability to maintain civiljustice. And right now in America,tragically enough, not because gunsare available but because criminalswill not be restricted, more guns arebeing sold to young women than everin our history. Why? So that they canlearn to use them legitimately to pro-tect themselves. It is a tragic day in anation of laws in which young womenhave to go out and secure a firearm forthe purpose of self-protection becausethose laws no longer work. That isreally what the debate ought to beabout today, criminal justice reform,in a way that truly does deal withthose who violate the laws of thiscountry.

I would suggest that the enemies ofour culture are refusing to recognizethat there are such things as individualresponsibilities. They prefer to shiftthe blame, and the blame is alwaysshifted to some inanimate object in-stead of to the mind of man. To suggestthat it is the mind of man who on occa-sion becomes evil, it is that evil thatperpetrates crime. Guns do not jumpup off the street and shoot people with-out people being attached to them. Youmay say that I use an old argument. Itis a darned valid old argument.

I agree with my colleague from Illi-nois that a 10 percent inspection rateof those who hold a Federal firearms li-cense is inadequate on an annualizedbasis. It ought to be 25 or 30 or 40.Should it be 100 percent annually?Should it be 100 percent or the vast ma-jority who buy or sell 10 guns on an an-nual basis and it is a hobby of theirs?

It is not by accident that the largestamount of licensed people live in theStates of Arizona, Florida, and Texas.They are collectors. They are notcriminals. In fact, in the States whereyou have some of the highest crimerates, you have some of the lowestnumber of licensed dealers.

17951

17952You cannot correlate crime and li-

censed dealers. It does not work. Sta-tistics will not allow it. What I am sug-gesting to the Senator from Illinois isthat he and I ought to work together toproduce a refined process that gets tothe heart of this issue, that gets to aresponsible and valid protection, doesnot send a new army of people acrossAmerica.

We tried that in the late sixties andit got us into trouble constitutionally.It got our citizens upset, as they shouldhave been.

Responsible inspection ought to bedone. I would agree that 10 percent isinadequate, even though less than 1percent of those that are inspected arefound to be in violation. Let us makesure that if it is 2,300 out of 240,000 thatwe are able to find them on a regularbasis and get the licenses out of theirhands and try to stop that kind of ille-gal trafficking.

I am not arguing that it will nothelp. What I am arguing is that a $375increase produces some annualized in-spection for everyone that is probablynot very realistic; that if we had han-dled this properly in committee, wewould have those figures, we wouldknow what we are talking about andwe could come before the U.S. Senatewith a reasonable approach that mightpass, that would make a lot of sense to-ward strengthening BATF.

Let me also say, why did this admin-istration cut back on their budget?Why did this administration, whichtalks about crime control, which saysthey want some form of gun control,cut back on the very agency that hasthe responsibility for inspection? I donot know the answer to that. Theyought not have done that.

I retain the remainder of my time.Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield 2

minutes to the Senator from Califor-nia.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. The Senator from California isrecognized for 2 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator for yielding me time to ad-dress some of the questions that wereraised by my friend and colleague fromIdaho.

He asked how this amendment isgoing to help get guns out of the handsof violent criminals?

I think the answer is clear. I thinkthat question has been answered overand over again. I would point out thatin my previous presentation I identi-fied 10 cases from all over the countryin which ATF was able to do its workand get to the bottom of some illegalgunrunning operations; and if theyhave the resources, they can do more ofthis.

I think the people in America will bemuch more confident of their safety ifthe ATF can do its job.

The Senator from Idaho raised theissue of violence. I can tell you as the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

author of the Violence Against WomenAct in the House, revived here in theSenate now-I am a proud cosponsor,believe me-I do not need to be lec-tured about violence, because womenin America today, unfortunately, arethe victims most often. I have to say tothe Senator, with all due respect, thatif some violent person is coming afterme late at night with a stone, I mighthave just a little bit of a better chancethan if that violent criminal could onlyget a stone and not a gun.

I do not want to take guns away fromdecent, law-abiding citizens. But I suredo want to take them away from thebad folks. The Senator says, well, it isjust the way people are, that boys willbe boys. Let me tell you the statistics,Mr. President: In 1990, handguns killed22 people in Great Britain; 13 in Swe-den; 91 in Switzerland; 87 in Japan; 10in Australia; 68 in Canada; and 10,567 inAmerica, the greatest country in theworld.

I would say that the people here arenot more violent than the people inother countries. I would say that thosecountries have laws that are better en-forced.


Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I mayrespond to my friend from Idaho andmy friend from Montana. First of all,this does not cover collectors. The lawis very clear in this. The law says thatthis covers a person who devotes time,attention and labor to dealing in fire-arms as a regular course of trade orbusiness with the principal objective oflivelihood and profit through the repet-itive purchase and resale of firearms.But such terms shall not include a per-son who makes occasional sales, ex-changes, or purchases of firearms foran enhancement of a personal collec-tion or for a hobby, or who sells all orpart of his personal collection of fire-arms.

So the collector is not covered.My colleague from Idaho says we

have to deal with crime. There is noquestion about it. And there are allkinds of reasons for violence. I amgoing to be speaking at a meeting Mon-day in Los Angeles where, for the firsttime the television and film industrywill be gathered together to talk aboutviolence on television. That is onepiece of the mosaic. But one piece ofthe mosaic is also people who sell guns,who do not get inspected. It is not 10percent, if I may correct my colleaguefrom Idaho on this. It is not 10 percentwho are inspected. We have 284,000 peo-ple who have licenses as of 1992. In 1992,16,000 were inspected. So 6 percent wereinspected.

He mentions the State of Texas par-ticularly. It is very interesting. TheState of Texas is a gun-running State;it sells to Central America, it sells toCalifornia. The distinguished Senatorfrom California just spoke. A lot of the

July 30, 1993guns that show up with criminals inthe State of California are purchased inTexas. Twenty-eight percent of theguns that are taken in criminal proce-dures in New York come from licensedgun dealers in the State of Virginia.

We have a major problem here. Wehave to recognize that.

The other point I would make, be-cause we do not have adequate inspec-tions, what happens right now-let usjust say that someone from Coloradodecides that he or she wants to becomea gun dealer, and has a criminal record.It is very easy to get around it. Yousimply use a different name, or yousend in the wrong Social Security num-ber. And even if in your State all policedepartments are on computers-and inmost States they are not all on com-puters yet, but even if in Colorado theyare all on computers-if you use thewrong Social Security number or thewrong name, you are going to get thatlicense. The media, incidentally, gotthe license to sell guns for two dogs;easiest thing in the world. You just fillout those forms and you send it in.

Clearly we have to do better.For the reference to gun shows, 3 per-

cent of those who are dealers partici-pate in gun shows and most of them,frankly, can afford a $375-a-year li-cense.

I find in the State of Illinois that aliquor license will vary from commu-nity to community. But generally, myrecollection is, it runs between $500 and$2,000 a year for a liquor license.

We are talking about something thatis much more lethal than liquor. Weare talking about selling somethingwhere you can murder people. We are,as the Senator from California said, weare murdering people at an astoundingrate. I mentioned last night, the city ofChicago, 927 deaths by firearms lastyear. Toronto, Canada, same popu-lation, 17. The city of Chicago, morefirearms deaths by 41/2 times, more fire-arms deaths than the entire country ofCanada.

Does Canada have a lot of guns? Yes,they do. But they are more careful.They have a 28-day waiting period forgetting a gun. They are more carefulwho sells guns and who can carry guns.I think we have to move in that direc-tion.

I certainly hope we can work some-thing out. If this amendment should bedefeated-and I hope it will not be, be-cause I think it is a reasonable amend-ment-my colleague from Idaho sayswe ought to make a change. I am will-ing to work with him or others forchange.

Clearly, we have to do a better job.Everyone who gets a gun license, a li-cense to sell guns, ought to be in-spected, as my colleague from Illinoissaid last night so eloquently. That isall we are asking. The people who sellthe guns should pay for it. Right now,we have a welfare program for gun

July 30, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATEdealers. It costs $375 to do an adequateinspection. We are inspecting only 6percent of those who get those licenses,and we do not even pay for that 6 per-cent right now.

So what we are asking for is justcommon sense.

Madam President, I reserve the re-mainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms.MOSELEY-BRAUN). Who yields time?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, whenwe look at the impact of this kind offee increase in the application and is-suance of the Federal firearm license,it is largely projected by the ATF thatthe greatest number who will go outwill be the small gun dealer; and byvolume, if we wish to talk about vol-ume, the small gun dealer appears, byall estimation, to be the more law-abiding. Certainly, the kinds that weare concerned about. The Chair spokeon the floor last evening about her con-cern on this issue. My colleague fromCalifornia has spoken to this issue.

Those who are moving the guns intothe streets of America that end up incriminal activity are doing so in highvolumes, making big money, all fromthose who they sell them to. And avery minor part, a very small portionof them, clearly less than 1 percent,pack a Federal license.

It is so amazing to me that in dealingwith the criminal element we like toput up these artificial barriers, assum-ing that a criminal will respond. Createa law, and a criminal will abide. Some-how we fail to understand the criminalmind or the definition of what is acriminal, who is a criminal, who be-comes a criminal. That is someone whodoes not abide by the law, plain andsimple.

So all of the gun dealers who want tostay in business, who want to be re-sponsible, as they are today, by 99 per-cent, they will still be there, and theywill pay whatever fee it is, except agood many will leave simply because itis such a minor part of their overalllifestyle that they will quit trading orwhatever.

In other words, what we will haveused is a tax to put people out of busi-ness because, you see, we are changinghuman activity at that point. Some-body is going to have what they be-lieved was their right to go to a gunshow on the weekend and buy and sella few guns taken away, in essence, bythe increase in fees. The crime in thestreets of Chicago is not going tochange until you take the criminal offthe street-not the gun, but the crimi-nal, because the criminal is still goingto get that gun, unless we decide toban all guns in this country, and I donot think we are ready to do that. I donot think society wants the secondamendment to our Constitution wipedaway.

My colleague from California saidAmerica is not a violent nation, or at

least no more violent than any othernation in the world. Therefore, thecrime rates in foreign countries are dif-ferent because there are no guns, or ac-cess to guns is very limited. She failsto recognize that study after studydoes in fact suggest that the basic cul-ture, the social and economic dif-ferences change different attitudes.

If you look at Switzerland wherethere are as many guns as there arepeople, there is a very low crime rate.Tough laws? You bet there are toughlaws. But there is also a fundamentallydifferent social attitude in that coun-try. They go after their criminals, nottheir gunowners. Let me tell you, ifyou commit a crime in Switzerland anduse a gun in the commission of thatcrime, you are put away. You are notpampered or plea bargained back to thestreet. You are put away.

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague willyield, I do not happen to know whatthe laws are in Switzerland for gundealers, but I am willing to gamble-you mention Switzerland-I am willingto say let us find out what the laws arein Switzerland and adopt those here inthe United States on gun dealers. Is mycolleague from Idaho willing to take alook at that?

Mr. CRAIG. I would certainly be will-ing-reclaiming my time-to take alook at it. I think my colleague fromIllinois knows I am sincere when I saylet us resolve this problem, because wehave a problem; nobody disputes that.

What I do not want to do, and whatwill be done by this amendment, is putan awful lot of fine law-abiding citizensout of business. We want the criminal.Those 2,500 deaths caused by handguns,quoted by my colleague from Califor-nia, we would like to stop that. Thereis no question about it. So we changethe law and we put the law-abiding cit-izen out of business, and the criminalhas the gun and the statistics will notchange because in Switzerland thecrime laws are different. In the wholeof Europe, the crime laws are different,and that is a reflective attitude of cul-ture.

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague willyield, I frankly do not know what thelaw is on selling guns in Switzerland.But just to the north of us in Canada,where they also have a very high per-centage of guns relative to the popu-lation, there you have to fill out a verydifferent form than we fill out withmuch more detail. It includes finger-prints; it includes a photograph; it in-cludes the kind of material that makesit easier to verify; you have to pay ahigher fee, and you have to do thekinds of things that we ought to atleast approach doing here in the UnitedStates.

I thank my colleague for yielding.Mr. CRAIG. The point that my col-

league makes of the environment inCanada is absolutely true. The pointthat is missed is that all Canadians can

own guns. Yet, crime rates are dif-ferent up there. Why? Well, there is asubstantial difference in law enforce-ment, and there is a substantial dif-ference in socioeconomic attitudes.There is a heck of a lot of differencebetween the inner city of Chicago andthe inner city of Montreal, as it relatesto drug dealing and trafficking and acriminal justice system that puts peo-ple back on the street.

In this city in which this debate isgoing on, four and five and six times aperson is put back on the street afterviolation of the law. They are put rightback on the streets and, ultimately,they commit a major crime; they takea life. That is a fact. This amendmentwill not change that fact.

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague willyield, Canada, for example, has a 28-day waiting period in order to buy agun.

Mr. CRAIG. I understand that.Mr. SIMON. I am sure my colleague

from Idaho would support such legisla-tion here.

Mr. CRAIG. As my colleague from Il-linois knows, I would not support that.But my colleague from Illinois wouldhave to admit that every Canadian cit-izen who, as I understand, is not a con-victed felon, can own a gun if theychoose, even if they go through thetightrope. My point is that the crimerates are different. There are as manyguns as a law-abiding Canadian wantsto own. Criminals in Canada have guns,but Canada treats criminals dif-ferently.

Mr. SIMON. If my colleague willyield, you may be surprised to learnthat the crime rate in Canada is notthat much different than the crimerate here in the United States. What isdifferent is the lethality of crime, thatthe crimes in the United States aremuch more likely to involve murder,much more likely to involve very seri-ous violence. And I think it is becauseCanada does a much better job ofscreening who owns a gun and does amuch better job of who sells guns.

If we adopt my amendment today, itdoes not go nearly as far as Canada,but it moves a little in the right direc-tion. I applaud my colleague fromIdaho for using Canada as an example.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, thenlet us talk more about Canada because,you see, after Canada passed a gun lawin 1977, a tough gun law, the murderrate did not go down, it edged up. Andthat is a fact. Robbery, burglary-allcrime rates went up in Canada.

What I do suggest is that, as a percapita basis, overall crime is down inCanada. There is a difference in thecultures. There is a heck of lot of dif-ference between the inner cities of Can-ada and inner cities of the major citiesof this country.

We treat criminals differently. Ofcourse, we all know that it is thecriminal element that has caused the

17953


greater problem and perpetuates thoseand brings other individuals into thatproblem. Anytime criminal justice inthis country returns a criminal to thestreet or a violator of law to thestreet-time and time again, until theykill, robbery after robbery, drug deal--ing after drug dealing, we plea bargainthem back to the street until they kill,then 10 years or less in prison, and theyare back on the street-something iswrong. Take the guns away and theworld will be a safer place. Not true.Not true.

We are talking about an attitude.Crime is behavior and is controlled bymoral and individual values.

I agree with my colleague from Illi-nois. We have talked about violentcrime on television perpetuating an at-titude in the minds of Americans, andwe are going to do something about it.He has taken a leadership role in thatarea. In other words, we are finally be-ginning to recognize that it is the mindand not the tool that the mind choosesto use that causes the problems we arehere debating today. We will throw upall of these barriers or attempt to, andwe will not change until we recognizethat a nation that is buried in lawsthat it will not enforce will create acriminal element that will threatenour very culture and our very societalattitudes that we hold dear. That is thebottom line.

We know in the development of thisNation that until we gained control ofthe streets, until we gained control ofour society, we had organizations thatwere anti in nature. Why? Because hu-mans demand justice. They demandsafety. They want security. And theyare going to try to get it. That is whatwe established a criminal justice sys-tem for.

For some reason, we cannot get agood many of our colleagues here inthe U.S. Senate and the House to be-lieve that it is the law that deals withthe criminal that makes the differencehere, not the law that deals with thegun or the knife or the bow and arrow,for that matter. But we want to gohome and say to our citizens who arefrightened in their homes and fright-ened on their streets, look what we didfor you. We passed a law that says weare going to charge $375 more to a fed-erally licensed firearm dealer, and thestreets of Chicago are going to be safer.

If you go home and say that, you arenot telling the truth because it will nothappen. If you go home and say thatthere are mandatory sentences andthose criminals will be taken off thestreets and the word sweeps across Chi-cago that if you use a gun in the com-mission of a crime, you are going to beput away for a long time, maybe thatbegins to make a difference becausemaybe that begins to change the crimi-nal mind.

Let us deal with reality. Let us notdeal with myth and let us not deal with

illusion because I believe the amend-ment today has a problem in the sensethat it argues something that it cannotaccomplish.

I retain the remainder of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?The Senator from Illinois.Mr. SIMON. Madam President, if no

one is seeking time, I will question thepresence of a quorum and ask the timeto be equally divided.

Mr. GRAMM. I want to speak.Mr. SIMON. I withdraw my request.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?Mr. SIMON. I note the presence of

the Senator from Texas who is overhere, I know, to support my amend-ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the Senatorfrom Texas 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Texas is recognized for 10minutes.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I hadan opportunity last night to debatethis subject at some length. I am hope-ful that when we vote on this issuelater this morning we will dispose of it.As I told my colleagues last night, ifwe do not dispose of this amendment atthat time, I will respond to the con-cerns of our Democratic colleagues byoffering an amendment that requires 10years in prison without parole for pos-sessing a firearm during the commis-sion of a violent crime or a drug felony,20 years for discharging that firearmwith intent to do bodily harm, manda-tory life imprisonment for killingsomeone, and the death penalty in ag-gravated cases.

I believe that that is the way to getat gun violence and gun crimes--putthe people who are abusing gun owner-ship in prison where they belong, andlet them have a long and hopefullyfruitful stay where they learn to re-spect the rights of law abiding citizens.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I risein opposition to the Simon amendmentin large part because I am not certainwhat it seeks to accomplish. Much hasbeen said about use of firearms incrime, some have suggested the costdoes not equal the cost of processingFederal firearms licenses, we've evenheard this will remove all Uzis fromthe streets.

My colleague, the senior Senatorfrom Texas, described the situation ac-curately-most active so-called FFL'sare small business men and women whoengage in the business of trading fire-arms to supplement their income.FFL's stem from the 1968 Gun ControlAct which, for the first time, prohib-ited the interstate sale of firearms byour citizens.

As an example, if someone from Riv-erton, KS, wanted to purchase a shot-gun from a virtual neighbor in Joplin,

MO, that Kansan would need a Federalfirearm license. We created the needfor FFL's, we have not changed the un-derlying need, so we must, in the firstcase, admit that there is a need forsome of our citizens to possess FFL's.

I certainly agree that the price of thelicenses should be increased. What con-cerns me is the over 3,000-percent in-crease being suggested in this amend-ment. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobaccoand Firearms has indicated the actualcost of processing is around $100 per li-cense-I am not sure why that isn't amore appropriate number. The sponsorof the amendment suggests the extra$275 would be used to supplement theATF budget-in part to offset the re-duction in the budget sought by theClinton administration. If this is true,we certainly have another new tax onthe middle class to pay for the moneythat was transferred out of Federal lawenforcement to pay for some new pro-gram-something we were supposed tobe against.

Let me now address the matter of thenumber of licenses, the theory thatcriminals are those who hold FFL's.The Senator from Illinois indicatedthat in 1992, 187 FFL's were prosecuted.Well, that amounts to six-tenths of 1percent of all FFL's-a percentage thatis probably below the number of Mem-bers of Congress who were alleged tohave violated some law that year. Somaybe we ought to pay some large feeto pay for the ATF to investigate us.

Finally, let me say that we aren'tgoing to remove Uzis or assault riflesor any other type of firearm from thestreets by raising the fee. Guns sold inthe streets of this country are usuallynot transactions involving FFL's. I amaware of no instance where someonewho wished to profit from armingcriminals first applied for a Federalfirearm license so as not to violate oneprovision of the 1968 Gun Control Actwhile violating another. That justmakes no sense.

I will state to the sponsor of thisamendment, I believe reform of theFFL program is overdue and I pledgemy cooperation in assisting that effort.However, I suggest this falls short, itsimply establishes a huge new tax onlaw abiding, low- and middle-incomeAmericans in the name of results thatwill not be accomplished.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whoyields time?

Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Illinois.Mr. SIMON. I yield 5 minutes to the

Senator from New Jersey.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from New Jersey.Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I

rise as an original cosponsor of theamendment of the distinguished Sen-ator from Illinois.

I think that this is a proposal that islong overdue. This country has experi-enced an explosion of guns in the last

17954


decade. Experts estimate that there arealtogether about 200 million guns inthis country-200 million guns-68 mil-lion handguns in this country. This hasimplications for many, many aspects ofour society.

Obviously, it has implications forcrime control, for violence in thestreets. It has implications for the ca-pacity of our health support systems,since hospitals are burdened by moreand more injuries as a result of guns.

The rise in the number of guns hasbeen caused in part, I believe, by thecost of the gun dealers' licenses, whichare abysmally low.

Last December, in the WashingtonPost, a staff writer named PierreThomas penned a series of articlescalled Under the Gun, which detailedhow easy it is to secure a gun dealer li-cense in this country.

Remember, this is guns, the right tosell guns. The story that was vividlytold by the series goes something likethis: If you want to sell guns, you fillout an application, you pay about $30,and in about 45 days you get a 3-year li-cense from the Federal Government tosell guns. Considering the tremendousdamage that irresponsible gun usecauses every year in terms of lives lostor altered or destroyed, that is a verysad story; $30, set up your shingle, sellguns.

Out of 34,000 applications for new gundealer licenses filed in 1991-out of34,000, only 37 were denied. These aresupposed to be screened so we makesure that people who are disreputableor unbalanced do not sell guns inAmerica-out of 34,000 applications,only 37 were denied. Only a fraction ofthe 34,000 were screened. Instead of sug-gesting that gun dealers have dis-proportionately more virtuous back-grounds than most Americans, thesefigures suggest that our current sys-tem of tracking applicants for dealers'licenses is woefully inadequate.

One gun dealer, who was quoted inthe Thomas series, called the currentsystem, in his words, "a joke." He goeson to say: "The politicians are scream-ing about gun control, but the Govern-ment is handing out licenses to everyTom, Dick, and Harry that comesalong."

Is that any way for us to act, handingout gun licenses to every Tom, Dick,and Harry that comes along? The totalnumber of federally licensed gun deal-ers is about 280,000 in this country-280,000 individuals who put shinglesoutside their stores saying, "We sellguns." It has been an explosion in thelast decades. Since 1980 the number ofgun dealers have increased 60 percent-in one decade. Is it any wonder thatkids going to high schools are carryingguns, that people are loading up onguns so much so that in one State aGovernor is hailed as a major gun con-trol advocate because he limits thepurchase to one gun per person per

month? It is because gun dealers inthis country have proliferated thelandscape-up 60 percent since 1980,280,000 gun dealers.

One of the reasons for this explosionis the bargain basement price of a gundealer's license. A gun dealer's licensecosts this year about $10, up to $30-$10to $30, a fee that basically has notchanged in 25 years.

Madam President, I ask unanimousconsent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I yield3 additional minutes to the Senatorfrom New Jersey.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BRADLEY. It has not changed in25 years. If you wanted to sell guns inAmerica 25 years ago, you paid thesame thing as you pay today. The ac-tual cost of processing the license ap-plication is much higher than the li-cense itself. The point has been madedramatically by the distinguished Sen-ator from Illinois. This means theAmerican taxpayers subsidize gun deal-ers at an alarming rate. This amend-ment would reduce that subsidy andhelp curb the explosion of gun dealersso Federal authorities would be betterable to monitor them, so we are betterable to be sure we do not have unbal-anced individuals out there selling Uzisto people in America.

Unlike other crime and gun issues,this is not an issue that can be dealtwith solely at the State level. I noticea lot of the opponents of this measurecome from States with relatively per-missive gun laws. I, on the other hand,represent a State with some of thetoughest gun control laws in the coun-try. We have had registration for gunssince 1967. Yet in my State where thereis substantial support for restrictingguns, local officials can do very littleabout the growing number of gun deal-ers because of the role played in theprocess by the Federal Government.This is why I believe we have to takethis step at this Federal level to dis-courage the growth of the gun indus-try.

Madam President, a lot more willhave to be done, I believe, before gunsales decline in this country. We haveto educate people about the high rateof accidental deaths caused by guns.We have to make it more difficult topurchase guns. We have to, frankly, ac-knowledge that fear covers the streetslike a sheet of ice, and we have to worktoward removing that fear from soci-ety. In short, we have to begin to lookat the proliferation of guns and gun vi-olence in America for what it is, anepidemic. And we have to begin tothink of it in epidemiological terms.But that is another story.

This amendment, it should benoted-and I do-is a step in the rightdirection because it seeks to bring thecost of obtaining a gun license more inline with the real cost of the license to

17955our society. I urge my colleagues tosupport this important beginning interms of getting control of gun dealersin this country and the proliferation ofguns and violence that frightens mil-lions of Americans to a degreeunthought of just a few years ago.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? The Senator from Idaho.Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the

1968 Gun Control Act that put in lawand into process the licensure issuethat is before us today in the amend-ment, within its definition is repletewith words about, "not restricting"-"not foreclosing"-"the purpose of thisact is not to deny."

The purpose of the 1968 Gun ControlAct was to be able to establish, if youwill, a paper trail. It was not to stoplaw-abiding citizens from getting orgaining a license to deal in, buy or sellfirearms in this country. We have a lotof law-abiding citizens today who dealvery slightly in firearms, but they donot want to be in violation of the law.They do not want it to ever be ques-tioned that they are. So they acquire alicense and they deal in, buy or sell,collect and hold, 8 or 10 guns a year. Itis their hobby. It is part of Americana,right or wrong. And that is the vastmajority.

Yet, we heard our colleague who justspoke talk about control. If he wantsto change the intent of law-you cancontrol through excessive taxation. Wehave known that throughout history.You can cause a shift in economics,you can change a way business is done,the way human behavior operates byexcessive taxation.

But my guess is you will not controlaccess, nor will you control the crimi-nal mind in his or her desire to ownand use a gun in the commission of acrime. The $375 talked about at thismoment is in the backdrop of it costing$56 to issue a license. Let me repeatthat. The cost of issuance is $56. Theinvestigation around the issuance is$44.

The field investigation, where theBATF investigators go out to the fieldand check the records of the dealers, isabout $235 annualized, and the travel isaround $40, average. That is where mycolleague from Illinois gets the $375figure.

That is to assume that we would in-spect every license on an annual basis.We do not inspect every food license ofevery restaurant in every city on anannual basis. I suggest that a reason-able check would be at least during thetenure of the license. We are not doingthat now. We have all agreed to that,and we have all agreed that is probablynot right to do.

But what we have not agreed to isthis form of excessive taxation, to sug-gest that through licensure we aregoing to fund other activities, other re-sponsibilities of BATF besides this, be-cause the amendment says, well, we

July 30, 1993

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 30, 1993will take out $19,700,000, and not morethan that, and the rest will be depos-ited into the Treasury as miscellaneousreceipts.

It sounds to me like because thisPresident decided to cut the budget ofBATF, the Senator is proposing we aregoing to raise the general budget ofBATF through this mechanism.

So what are we doing here? Are we,in fact, creating an environment bywhich we can license in a responsiblefashion, inspect in a responsible fash-ion? Do we really want to hire 300 addi-tional people at BATF? Those are theissues at hand. That is what this Sen-ate ought to examine in absence of thekind of hearings that bring about thetype of legislation that we can prob-ably both agree on that would result inreasonable and responsible inspectionon some regular basis to assure safety,to assure that that less than 1 percentelement are not misusing their licen-sure or hiding behind their license forthe purpose of illegal trafficking in thesales of guns.

Those are the bottom-line issues thatthis Senate has to consider when theylook at this amendment. My guess is itis a broader way to fund BATF and itsbroad activities at Treasury. Yet, weonly said in the 1968 law that we want-ed to create a paper trail; we would notinhibit, nor would we prohibit, becausethat would be a violation of the Con-stitution. But we did want to be able tocheck about illegal activities and tosubstantiate the responsibility and theresponsiveness of the dealer.

That is what ought to be at issuehere, but I suggest it is not. I retainthe remainder of my time.

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I yield7 minutes to the senior Senator fromCalifornia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President,I have been privileged to be on thefloor while this discussion has beentaking place and listening to my dis-tinguished colleague from the opposi-tion and also to Senator SIMON. I thinkthat the issue has gotten really con-fused. I would like to return it to thebasic point of what Senator SIMON andhis cosponsors, yourself included,Madam President, are trying to dowith this legislation.

Essentially, what we have today is anATF gun-registration program whichregisters about 290,000 registrants ayear, about 286,000. The whole programcosts around $29 million, includingfixed administrative costs. The licensefees presently only bring in $2.9 mil-lion. Consequently, the taxpayers sub-sidize the gun registration and compli-ance program for the remainder, theremainder of which is about $26 millionof subsidy.

What the ATF is saying, what Sen-ator SIMON is saying, what we, MadamPresident, are trying to say is, replace

the taxpayer subsidy with a fee that isrelated to the cost of compliance andenforcement of the law. That fee, ac-cording to ATF, is $375 a year, which isthe cost of complying with the pro-gram.

Presently, even with a taxpayer sub-sidy, ATF cannot go out into the field,cannot inspect a permittee to see ifthat permittee is what that permitteesays he or she is.

Let me read into the RECORD, if Imay, two recent editorials from news-papers: One from the west coast andone from the east coast.

Being a Westerner, let me point outan editorial which ran on the 27th ofthis month-3 days ago-in the Los An-geles Times. It is entitled: "Need a GunDealer's License? No Problem." Then itbegins by citing a case that I men-tioned last night on the floor of theSenate, the case of Josh Daniel Lee.And I quote:

For Josh Daniel Lee, obtaining a Federalpermit to deal guns was easier than gettinga license to drive. In 1991, at age 21, with nocriminal record and $30 to spend, Lee simplyfilled out a form, sent in the fee and waited-no more than 45 days-to secure a Federalfirearms license from the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms. That's when the trou-ble began.

Two weeks ago, Lee was arrested andcharged, by the same Government that is-sued him that license, with supplying illegalweapons out of his home to members of theFourth Reich Skinheads, the hate group thatallegedly planned to inflame racial tensionsin Los Angeles by attacking African-Ameri-cans and Jews.

The arrest, part of a heads-up operation byFederal and local lawenforcement * * * that broke up the pur-ported plot, is commendable. But the easewith which Lee was able to get a dealer's li-cense-allowing him to ship and receivelarge quantities of firearms and ammunitionat wholesale prices-again raises disturbingquestions about the regulation of America'squarter-million federally licensed firearmsdealers.

This is the main part, Madam Presi-dent; this is the main part:

The ATF estimates that only 20 percent ofthose now licensed operate a traditionalstore front business.

Only 20 percent.The rest, so-called kitchen-table dealers,

sell firearms out of homes, hotel rooms orprivate offices, too often in violation of Fed-eral, State and local laws.

The point was raised last night, and Iadmit that part of the American dreamis the right to protect oneself, thatthere are arms swaps where people incountry areas will go to a meeting andpurchase arms; and that people earnpart-time income from selling thesearms. I say then, let them register. Isay then, let them pay the $375. I saythen, let a Federal arms compliance of-ficer visit them once a year to deter-mine that they are legitimate people,that they are hardworking people andthat they are selling their arms to thesane, not to the deranged, not to thecriminal, not to those who would ter-

rorize, attack and maim. That is thepoint in this.

Let me tell you, Madam President,we heard about the countryside-thecountryside of Texas, the countrysideof Idaho. Let us talk for a momentabout Los Angeles, and let me give youa chilling factor, again, from these ar-ticles.

* * * of the 1,100 gun dealers in the City ofLos Angeles in 1992, only 130 complied withlocal ordinance requiring them to be reg-istered and fingerprinted and to pay $300 fora permit from the Police Commission. Infact, local law enforcement authorities haveno idea who is dealing guns in their jurisdic-tions. And that is because prospective licens-ees are not required by Federal law to provethat they are in compliance with State andlocal business licensing statutes.

This is a direct quote from an edi-torial of the Los Angeles Times.

It goes on to say:The problem is exacerbated by Federal

laws that in effect require the ATF to issuemany more licenses than it can possiblykeep track of.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator from California has ex-pired.

Mr. SIMON. I yield 2 additional min-utes to the Senator from California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Sen-ator very much.

There are only 1 dozen Federal com-pliance inspectors to monitor 4,000 gundealers in Los Angeles, Ventura, andSanta Barbara Counties.

Listen to that. There are only adozen compliance inspectors to mon-itor 4,000 gun dealers in three hugecounties in America. What this wouldallow us to do is bring compliance tothe point where it means something,where there is at least an annual visitby a Federal ATF inspector to a gundealer to see what that gun dealer isdoing.

We took an oath of office to upholdthe laws of our country, to protect ourpeople. We now have a simple measurethat can enable us to do that, and wewill not vote for it. I cannot believe it.I cannot believe it.

Who would vote against saying thatpeople who want to deal in guns shouldfill out an application that pays thecost to see they are doing what theysay they are doing, selling these gunslegitimately, not in hotel rooms toskinheads, not in back lots to peoplewho would terrorize, not in motelrooms to a potential assassin, but tolegitimate people who want to use thatweapon for legitimate sporting pur-poses, as a collector or for self-protec-tion.

That is all this legislation talksabout. To me, it is basic, sane legisla-tion that is aimed at protecting thewelfare of our citizens, to see that thisGovernment does what it says it isgoing to do, provide for the generalwelfare, promote the common defense,ensure the domestic tranquility. Thatis all this legislation does. I cannot un-derstand how anybody going to a gun

17956


swap meet would feel that the personselling those guns should not be rep-utable, should not be honest, andshould not pay a fee for just theamount that it takes to see that he orshe is just that.

That is what this legislation does.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time

of the Senator has expired.Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Sen-

ator.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Illinois.Who yields time?Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the

Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Illinois has 5 minutes re-maining; the Senator from Idaho has 8minutes remaining.

Mr. SIMON. I yield to the Senatorfrom California for a unanimous-con-sent request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.I ask unanimous consent a Los Ange-

les Times editorial dated July 27, 1993,and a Washington Post editorial datedDecember 2, 1992, be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the edi-torials were ordered to be printed inthe RECORD, as follows:[From the Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1993]

NEED A GUN DEALER'S LICENSE? NO PROBLEM

For Josh Daniel Lee, obtaining a federalpermit to deal guns was easier than gettinga license to drive. In 1991, at age 21, with nocriminal record and $30 to spend, Lee simplyfilled out a form, sent in the fee and waited-no more than 45 days-to secure a federalfirearms license from the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms. That's when the trou-ble began.

Two weeks ago, Lee was arrested andcharged, by the same government that issuedhim that license, with supplying illegalweapons out of his home to members of theFourth Reich Skinheads, the hate group thatallegedly planned to inflame racial tensionsin Los Angeles by attacking African-Ameri-cans and Jews.

The arrest, part of a heads-up operation byfederal and local law enforcement authori-ties that broke up the purported plot, iscommendable. But the ease with which Leewas able to get a dealer's license-allowinghim to ship and receive large quantities offirearms and ammunition at wholesaleprices-again raises disturbing questionsabout the regulation of America's quarter-million federally licensed firearms dealers.

KITCHEN TABLE: The ATF estimates thatonly 20% of those now licensed operate a tra-ditional storefront business. The rest, so-called "kitchen-table dealers," sell firearmsout of homes, hotel rooms or private offices,too often in violation of federal, state andlocal laws.

As Times staff writer David Freed reportedin a five-part series on guns last year, of the1,100 gun dealers in the city of Los Angelesin 1992, only 130 complied with a local ordi-nance requiring them to be registered andfingerprinted and to pay $300 for a permitfrom the Police Commission. In fact, locallaw enforcement authorities often have noidea who is dealing guns in their jurisdic-

tions. That's because prospective licenseesare not required by federal law to prove thatthey are in compliance with state and localbusiness and licensing statutes.

The problem is exacerbated by federal lawsthat, in effect, require the ATF to issuemany more licenses than it can possiblykeep track of. There are only about a dozenfederal compliance inspectors to monitor4,000 gun dealers in L.A., Ventura and SantaBarbara counties.

By contrast, dealers luxuriate under theFirearms Owners Protection Act. Passed byCongress in 1986, it limits the ATF to onlyone unannounced inspection per dealer eachyear and prohibits the agency from cen-tralizing dealer records or establishing anysystem of firearms registration. This act isan outrage and must be changed.

MURDER RATE: Such legal loopholes,combined with lax enforcement, may not bemuch of a problem in rural areas, but forcities like Los Angeles the consequences andcosts are enormous. The steady flow of gunscontributes to a climate of escalating fearand violence. Last year, more than 8,000 peo-ple were treated for gunshot wounds in coun-ty hospitals and 1,919 were murdered withfirearms. Against those horrific numbers,the government should move to run illegit-imate dealers out of business as fast as itcan.

Toward that end, Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.)has introduced a bill to raise the licensingfee to $750. Besides helping pay for the grow-ing cost of regulating dealers, that higher fi-nancial threshold would undoubtedly weedout some of the undesirables.

Congress should also approve measures bySen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) torequire that applicants prove they are incompliance with state and local laws andzoning, business licensing and dealer require-ments. In addition, Congress should drop therequirement that the government issue li-censes after only 45 days even if its reviewprocess is not complete. Without these sim-ple changes, people like Lee will continue toprovide guns to society's most undesirableelements.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1992]LICENSE TO KILL

In an eye-opening series this week titled"Under the Gun," staff writer Pierre Thomasreported that getting a federal license to sellfirearms is a snap. Fill out a short form, pay$30, and in about 45 days you've got a license.No fuss and probably no bother-mostrecords aren't audited for decades. No won-der business is jumping-with more than 270licenses a day issued in 1991. Of 34,000 appli-cations for new licenses last year, only 37were denied. There were 57,327 licenses re-newed and only 15 renewal applications de-nied. The total number of license-holders,most of them considered law-abiding, is ri-diculously high-276,000, up 59 percent since1980, while the number of federal inspectorsassigned primarily to gun dealers is down 13percent. And oh, yes: Guns have killed 60,000people in this country in five years.

So what's the matter with the U.S. Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agen-cy that dishes out all these licenses and thencan't begin to monitor them? This agency isonly as effective as the law allows it to be,and in this case the law is just the way-weak-the NRA likes. The gun lobby prefersan agency with minimum computerized ca-pacity to check records or use a centraldatabase. In 1986, when members of Congresswere even more cowed by the gun lobby thanthey are today, the NRA and its semiauto-

matic water-carrier in the Senate at thetime-Republican James A. McClure ofIdaho, now retired-succeeded in weakeningwhat law was on the books. His legislationreduced certain recordkeeping violations bydealers from felonies to misdemeanors andforbade ATF to inspect any gun dealer morethan once a year.

ATF needs its teeth back. The agency isgood at what it is allowed to do, includingthe tracking of guns, even though it mayhave to sift through slips of paper because ithasn't been able to computerize its recordsquickly enough. Good legislation has beenproposed before and should be enacted now.It's obvious that tougher federal controls areneeded, along with a force that can inspectall license-holders regularly. One other pro-posal that could take effect quickly wouldrequire any applicant for a federal license tosupply certification of compliance with allstate and local ordinances. This, with an ac-celerated automation and inspection plan,could begin to make a difference right away.So could some tighter rules on applicationsfor renewals.

The gun manufacturers for whom the NRAfronts will insist that the killers will alwaysget firearms without paying attention totougher controls. Why not test their argu-ment? As it stands, the federal system is adisgrace.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Idaho.Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, my

colleague from California has made avery compelling argument as it relatesthis morning to the amendment, but itis compelling if we do not worry aboutfacts.

For example, let me remind my col-league from California that it is not anAmerican dream to own a gun. It is aconstitutional right. So somebody doesnot just dream about owning a gun inthis country. They have the right toown a gun.

Now, it is not a dream or a right, toown a Federal firearms license. it issomething you apply for under the law,and it is something granted if youqualify. Of course, the director ofBATF, when they finally decided to in-crease their effort at looking at appli-cants and doing what the 1968 law re-quires them to do, found out that a va-riety of individuals abandoned or with-drew their applications when they didwhat they were supposed to do underthe law. That was a quote made onJune 17.

We know that that will happen ifthey do what they are supposed to do.But we have an administration whichhas even cut back on their funding, andI am not sure why that is the case. Inthat same statement, of course, weknow the director said that most li-censees, a vast majority of licensees,do not contribute to crime in our coun-try.

I am not quite sure why-and I am al-ways very frustrated by it-there arethose who will not allow this Congressto produce good criminal law that willdeal with the criminal, but we want todeal with some inanimate object and

17957

17958 cgo home and say the streets of SanFrancisco are safer. Not on your life.The streets of San Francisco and LosAngeles will not be safer until we dealwith the criminal element and not theguns.

When the streets of Los Angeleserupted, citizens of Los Angeles wentout and bought guns for their protec-tion because local and State law en-forcement agencies failed. That is thebottom line. There were more guns soldin Los Angeles during that period oftime than had been sold in any otherperiod of time in its history-by law-abiding citizens who finally realizedthat local law enforcement agenciescould no longer keep them safe, notjust against guns but against criminalelements charging through the frontsof their houses, and ransacking them,and setting them afire along with theirbusinesses. Now, that is a breakdown inlaw. That is a breakdown in State gov-ernment doing what it ought to bedoing.

I suggest to all of you that $375 doesnot a safer Los Angeles make. But weknow what will make it safer-chang-ing the laws and dealing with the prob-lems of that inner-city area in a re-sponsible and comprehensive fashion,not taking law-abiding citizens' rightsaway from them, or not destroying thesmall businessperson, or not sendingacross the land a fleet of Federalagents to run roughshod over therights of American citizens.

That is the issue that is at hand inthis amendment. Let us sit down andwork it out. Let us do it in a respon-sible fashion. Let us make BATF dowhat by law they are charged and re-sponsible for doing. This amendmentcannot, and will not, accomplish that.

I reserve the remainder of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

MATHEWS). The Senator from Illinois.Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first let

me just say that person earlier de-scribed by the Senator from Idaho, aperson who owns 8 or 10 guns and occa-sionally sells a gun or buys a gun, isnot covered by the Federal licensingrequirement. The law is very clear onthat.

Second, who supports this? Well,among others, the National Alliance ofStocking Gun Dealers. Now, who arethey? They are the people who actuallyhave gun stores. They favor this legis-lation.

I ask unanimous consent to insertinto the RECORD the letter from B.R.Bridgewater, the executive director ofthat association.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

NATIONAL ALLIANCE OFSTOCKING GUN DEALERSHavelock, NC, July 13, 1993.

Senator PAUL SIMON,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR SIMON: A careful reading ofthe Gun Control Act of 1968, which governs

:ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

the issuance of Federal Firearms Dealers Li-censes (FFL), leaves absolutely no doubtthat the intention of the statute is to regu-late the "business" of selling firearms.

The Form 7 application for a license con-tains 15 references to the need for "busi-nesses" to be licensed. In contradiction tothe Form, ATF's previous liberal interpreta-tion of the licensing provisions of the GCAhas led to the issuance of 286,000 licenses toengage in the "business" of selling firearms.By ATF's own admission, an estimated 80%of all firearms licensees are not bona fide orlegitimate businesses.

Those who obtain a dealers license areunder no Federal obligation to comply withstate or local laws. Many simply choose toignore them. Do not delude yourself thatthose who fail to comply with state and locallaw are not dealing in firearms, they are!They simply operate illegally.

Many federally licensed dealers ignorelocal licensing or sales tax requirements inorder to hide their activities. Only recentlyhas ATF used its limited resources to keepthe illegal dealers (i.e. those who do notcomply with state and local laws) from get-ting a federal license. This marks a reversalof a 10-15 year trend.

While we applaud ATF's efforts, more over-sight is needed and stronger legislation isneeded in order to have any real impact oncompliance by dealers. We will discuss thisissue in more detail a little later.

A 1984 amendment to the GCA permittingdealers to conduct sales at gunshows withintheir home state has spurred the ever-in-creasing desire for firearms dealers licenses,and it has led to the establishment of a welloiled and very efficient national firearmsblack market.

Because of limited ATF resources and theoverwhelming number of gunshows held inthis country each year, sales at gunshows govirtually unchecked by any level of regu-latory or law enforcement oversight.

These gun shows are frequented by all seg-ments of society-firearms and outdoorsports enthusiasts as well as felons, gangmembers, and multi-state gun runners. Theease with which a firearm can be purchasedat a gunshow is well known within the crimi-nal community.

Profit is also a strong motivator for thosewho choose to participate in the under-ground firearms trade occurring on thestreets of our cities every day. Small, semi-automatic pistols purchased by blackmarketeers for $50 sell "off paper", on thestreets, for $250-$400 while the bona fide,compliant dealer sells the same pistol for$60.

The time has come to stem the illegal flowof firearms in this country through legisla-tive initiatives that give ATF the tools nec-essary to put an end to both the illegal ac-cess to firearms and firearms licenses. To-ward this end, we respectfully request yourconsideration of the following:

1. Require all applicants for a Federal Fire-arms License to submit two photos, one sideand one front, and a full fingerprint cardtaken and certified by the local police de-partment of sheriffs office.

2. Require a photo of the intended businesslocation both inside and outside, accom-panied by a statement from the cognizantzoning inspector that a firearms businessmay be operated at that location.

3. Require copies of all state and local per-mits and licenses to be submitted with theForm 7 application.

4. Upon receipt of the application, conducta thorough background check (preferably by

July 30, 1993the FBI) to determine whether the applicantis a felon, or a clean citizen.

5. Charge a license fee sufficient to defraythe cost of processing the application, doinga comprehensive background check, and ac-complishing the other administrative tasks.I believe that this can be accomplished prop-erly for a fee in the range of $350-$500.

6. Do a compliance audit six to eightmonths after the licensee opens for businessto ensure that the new licensee starts outproperly.

7. If notified by a responsible state or localagency that the licensee is not in compliancewith state or local law, give the licensee no-tice that he has 30 days to comply with locallaw or lose his license. If he fails to comply,revoke his license.

8. Note that there, is no Federal FirearmsLicense for "personal use". Nor is there a"hobbyist license", so prohibit the issuanceof a business license for these purposes.

Sincerely,B.R. BRIDGEWATER,

Executive Director.Mr. SIMON. They make it very clear.

It says:While we applaud ATF's efforts, more over-

sight is needed and stronger legislation isneeded in order to have any real impact oncompliance by dealers. We will discuss thisissue in more detail a little later.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?Mr. SIMON. Just for 20 seconds be-

cause I am running out of time.Mr. CRAIG. I will share this on my

own time then, because what is veryimportant here is the definition in en-gaging in business. The Senator isright, those who engage in the businessof selling firearms must have a license,but because of the 1983 circuit court de-cision by Judge Scalia as it related tothe definition of "conducting busi-ness," the Court rejected the argumentthat means a commercial enterpriseand said it is far less than that. Andwhat happened after that was the col-lector who deals in 8 or 10 firearms ayear, fearful that he might be definedas violating the law by this action,went out and got a license. So I amcorrect in my argument, and we havean awful lot of people who seek a li-cense who may not need it, simply be-cause they do not want to risk being inviolation of the law.

Mr. SIMON. It may be that some col-lectors do that if they are selling a lot.But the law is very clear. This does notapply to collectors.

So the people who actually have gunstores favor this. Who else favors it?The police organizations. We have achoice of siding with the police organi-zations, our law enforcement peoplewho risk their lives for us, or thesepeople who are selling guns over thekitchen table or out of the trunks oftheir cars.

And we are not trying to stop themin this amendment. What we are sayingis we do not need welfare for gun deal-ers. They ought to pay the cost. That isall this amendment does.

We need inspections. We are now in-specting 8 percent of those who holdthese licenses to sell guns.


And if you want right now to get a li-cense to sell guns, it is the easiestthing in the world. You can just send inthe wrong Social Security number, youcan send your dog's name in, you cansend the wrong name in. It is abso-lutely ridiculous.

This amendment does not take a gunaway from a single person who owns agun today. What this amendment does,it says let us have inspection of thosewho sell guns, who traffic in weapons,sometimes trafficking with people ille-gally.

Senator FEINSTEIN mentioned thatfamous phrase "ensure domestic tran-quillity." We are not doing a good jobof ensuring domestic tranquillity.

This is not, overnight, going to doanything in Los Angeles, Chicago, butit is a small step in the right direction,and we have to take some small stepsin the right direction. I hope my col-leagues will support the amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask mycolleagues to oppose this amendmentand take a giant step for taking crimi-nals off the street, and to stop the kill-ing that is going on in the streets ofAmerica today, by major reform incriminal law.

Senators ought not be going homeand saying, look, we just passed a $375licensing fee and the world is going tobe a lot better, because we know thatwill not be the case. Less than 1 per-cent of all of those who currently holda license are found to be in misuse ofthat license. Without question, thevast majority of the illegal weapons onthe streets of America today are dealtout of the back trunks of cars and aredealt by illegal dealers, not by licensedFederal firearm dealers.

Sure, there can always be one or twoexamples, but we all know the facts. Ifwe are going to adhere to the law ofthe land and to the constitutionalright, then we are not going to putthese kinds of restrictions in place. Weare going to have a system that works,though.

My colleague from Illinois and Iagree that the current system is notworking very well because it cannothandle the volume. And the responsiblecommittee deserves to have the hear-ings, should have the hearings, shouldcraft a law that is reasonable, shouldnot run small business people out ofbusiness, should not create a task thatis confiscatory, that takes away rightsand opportunity.

I am very fearful based on the factswe have heard today that that is theintent, and, of course, that is the re-ality of what will happen. If 80 to 90people walk away from their licensethen something is wrong out there be-cause we know that less than 1 percentare illegal in their activities. That isthe fundamental issue at hand. Let usdeal with it in a fair and responsibleway that solves that problem, and letme also suggest that we do not finance

the whole of BATF operations on thebacks of legitimate firearms dealers.

That appears, by this amendment, tobe exactly what is going to happen.They need approximately $100. They donot need $375. I would think that a 30to 40 percent inspection annually,maybe as high as 50 percent--thatmeans every other year the books arelooked at-becomes a responsible ap-proach, But that is not what is beingdealt with here. They are suggesting300 more Federal employees, out look-ing at everyone's books on anannualized basis. That will not a saferworld make, but it certainly begins tothreaten the rights and the constitu-tional privileges of the individual.

I retain the remainder of my time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator's time has expired.The Senator from Illinois has 1

minute and 5 seconds.Mr. SIMON. I yield 1 minute and 5

seconds to the Senator from Arizona.Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I

thank mny friend.Mr. President, we ought to adopt this

amendment. It is reasonable. The costhere-I beg to differ with my friendfrom Idaho-is more than $100. Weknow that. It is at least $375. In 1992,the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, andFirearms licensing center accepted2,900 applications each month. BetweenJanuary and April 1993, the numbersjumped to 6,000 per month. These in-creases are simply a direct result ofsuch an easy way to get it, and it costsnothing-nothing.

There are now more gun dealers inthis country than there are gas sta-tions. As a gas station owner, and hav-ing dealt with that business over theyears, they have to pay greater li-censes than it does for a gun dealer.

This is a reasonable approach. It isnot an infringement. It is not going tocure our crime problem. And the argu-ment is, well, let us get tough on crimeand increase penalties. We had a crimebill here, time and time again, and wecould not get the votes to impose clo-ture to get over it. I do not know wherethe Senator from Idaho was on it. Butthat is where we ought to be fightingcrime. We ought to raise these fees. Itis reasonable. It goes to support the le-gitimate concern of ATF.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise instrong support of Senator SIMON'samendment. Simply put, we need to in-crease gun dealer fees to allow for amore comprehensive system of back-ground checks and dealer inspections.In turn, these more stringent controlswill ensure a heightened level of re-sponsibility in the sale and use of fire-arms.

It is unconscionable that today it iseasier to obtain a license to sell fire-arms than a license to drive a car. Fora driver's license, you have to take atest, have your picture taken, and havethe ID issued. In contrast, to obtain a

Federal license to sell firearms, ittakes much less: merely a two-pageform, a $10 fee, and a cursory back-ground check by the understaffed Bu-reau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms[BATF]. In 1990, of the 34,336 Americanswho applied for a license, only 75 hadtheir applications denied.

Many of these gun dealers use theirlicenses to buy guns for themselves orsell guns out of their homes. Dealerscan order guns wholesale through themail in unlimited quantities and areoften exempt from retail sales lawssuch as waiting periods and back-ground checks. While the vast majorityof firearm dealers are law-abiding citi-zens, the transgressions of a few haveled to deathly results for far too many.In fact, all you need to do is open upyour newspaper and you can read foryourself: The stories of criminals pur-chasing guns hours before committingmurders are littered throughout theirpages. The Director of the BATF toldthe House Judiciary Committee that,"* * * virtually all guns ending up inthe hands of criminals flow through li-censed dealers." So we must ensurethat laws concerning sale of firearmsare being enforced, and we must haveenough staff members to force compli-ance with the law.

And do not just take my word that li-censing fees need to be raised: ask theNRA. In a hearing before the Govern-mental Affairs Committee this March,the NRA acknowledged that increasedfees make sense. We only disagree onthe amount.

Mr. President, the proliferation offirearm dealers is accompanied by adisturbing phenomenon of juvenileownership of guns. In a landmark re-port released last week by the JoyceFoundation, students were surveyedabout their experiences, perceptions,and apprehensions about guns. The re-port revealed an astounding portrait ofthe prevalence of gun culture: 59 per-cent of the respondents say they couldget a handgun, "if I wanted one," 15percent say they have carried a hand-gun on their person in the past 30 days,and one in 25 say they have taken ahandgun to school this past year. Addi-tionally, the cover stories in bothNewsweek and Time this week are bothabout kids and guns.

Mr. President, we must act now topreserve the safety of our children andcurb the rapid increase in violence thatis afflicting our society. We need toprovide a series of new legislativemeasures to fight against violence, andthis amendment is an important firststep. My Youth Handgun Safety Actalso moves toward curbing juvenile ac-cess to guns. So does the Brady bill.For the sake of our children, I hopethat they will all become law by thetime this Congress adjourns.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it seemsto me that the amendment put forth bythe Senator from Illinois simply makescommon sense.

17959


It seems clear that all should agreethat $10 is a ridiculously, ludicrouslylow fee for a Federal firearms license.there are very, very few-if any-otherlicenses that cost so low. And when oneconsiders that we are talking about alicense for dealing in guns-by any def-inition, deadly weapons-the low feeseems not only ridiculous, but down-right foolhardy.

The amendment proposed would raisethat fee from $10 to $375. I do not con-sider that $375 is an exorbitant amount,especially considering that a dealerwith any profit margin at all couldcover that fee without much difficulty.

And quite frankly, when you considerthat we are talking about a lethalproduct-guns, weapons that arewreaking havoc on our society-I findthe sum of $375 actually quite out-rageously small for a virtually unlim-ited right to buy as many guns as youlike and distribute them freely.

This amendment does not merit alengthy discussion of the so-called sec-ond amendment right to bear arms-which is an utter canard, by the way. Ithas nothing to do with whether citi-zens can go trap or skeet shooting. Ithas to do with commonsense rulesabout how easily one should be able topurchase the ability to buy unlimitedquantities of guns.

All this amendment is, is a smallstep toward sanity. It will not stop allhandgun violence-but it will help slowdown and close off yet another of ourunbelievably easy routes of access todeadly guns.

Now, as my colleagues know, I be-lieve we should close off access tohandguns entirely, simply turn off thespigot that pours more than 2 millionhandguns into circulation each year bybanning handguns altogether. In myview, that is the real way-the onlyway-to tackle the problem of handgunviolence. I would like to see the Senatedebate my public Health and SafetyAct of 1993; a bill to ban the sale, man-ufacture, and possession of handguns. Iwould welcome that.

But that is not what this debatetoday is about. What the Senator fromIllinois is asking for, in fact, hardlymerits debate. It should be approvedunanimously. What is the fuss about?

In sum, I believe the Senator from Il-linois has an amendment that makeseminent sense. I congratulate him onthis proposal and am pleased to be acosponsor of his amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise insupport of the amendment offered bythe Senator from Illinois that wouldincrease the fee required by the Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms[ATF] for a Federal Firearm License[FFL] from $10 to $375.

The number of firearm dealers in thiscountry has increased from 174,000 in1980 to 287,000 today, an increase ofover 60 percent. ATF reports that thereis one firearm dealer for every 1,000

Americans, and one dealer for approxi-mately every 290 firearm owners. Ac-cording to the Violence Policy Center,that means that there are more gundealers in our country than there aregas stations.

In West Virginia the numbers are ris-ing as well. In October of 1992, therewere 3,490 dealers; in March 1993, therewere 3,661; and currently there are ap-proximately 3,800. That is an almost 10-percent increase in only 9 months. Toput these number in perspective, 3,800dealers means that, on average, thereare 69 dealers in each of West Vir-ginia's 55 counties.

ATF has testified that initial appli-cations are increasing so rapidly thatthey simply cannot keep up. The cur-rent license fee is only $10-the same aswas established in 1968 and never in-creased-and that the cost of the cur-rent inspection and investigation proc-ess is over $100. That means that theAmerican taxpayer is currently subsi-dizing each gun dealer by $90. And thecurrent investigation process is clearlyinadequate. Apparently, fewer than 10percent of dealer applicants undergo anactual inspection in the form of a per-sonal interview or an on-site visit.With the rest, ATF must rely on com-puter searches to inspect applicants'records, using a computer system thedatabase of which does not containcritically needed information frommany States, such as arrests and dis-positions records. I am advised that,once licensed, a typical dealer is au-dited by Federal inspectors only onceevery 20 years.

ATF has indicated that increasingthe fee to $375 would ultimately enablethem to improve their initial applica-tion screening process to include per-sonal interviews or onsite visits inmost cases, and would also provide formore followup inspections.

ATF also believes that the proposedfee increase and improved investigativeprocess will discourage individualsfrom obtaining a dealer's license for il-legal purposes.

ATF Director Steven Higgins testi-fied before a congressional committeeon June 17, 1993, that:

Whether criminals buy guns directly orthrough straw purchases or from traffickerswho buy the guns for resale, virtually allguns ending up in the hands of criminalsflow through licensed dealers.

Mr. Higgins testified further that 73percent of licensed dealers buy or sellless than 10 guns a year. These aredealers who sell guns at their kitchentable, from the trunk of their car, andin hotel rooms. Mr. Higgins said:

Although most licensees do not contributeto our crime problem, the sheer volume ofdealers is obstructive in determining thefocus of our compliance program.

Not a day goes by that we are not re-minded of the rampant increase incrime in our country, especially crimescommitted with firearms and related

to drugs. Unfortunately, there is everyindication, as recent news articles havereported, that this scourge is nowspreading to areas of West Virginia.

It certainly seems reasonable to meto provide the ATF with resources itneeds to improve its firearms licensingand renewal process to help weed outthose dealers who may engage in ille-gal activities.

It also seems reasonable to me that,in times of budget constraint, the costsof this licensing process should not beborne by the American taxpayers, butrather by those who benefit by receiv-ing their Federal firearms licenses, thedealers themselves.

This measure will not prevent anyAmerican or West Virginian from exer-cising his or her constitutional right topurchase a firearm. This measure willnot prevent an aspiring businessmanfrom acquiring a license or put an ex-isting, legitimate gun dealer out ofbusiness. What is will do is to helpmake sure that those who are federallylicensed to sell guns should be.

Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President,I rise today to briefly explain why Iwill reluctantly be opposing theamendment by my friend and colleaguefrom Illinois, Senator SIMON.

This amendment would raise the userfee for applying for a Federal firearmlicense from the current level of $10 peryear to $375 per year. The Bureau of Al-cohol, Tobacco and Firearms has esti-mated it would cost between $375 to$500 per application to conduct thekind of thorough background checks itshould on potential gun dealers. BATFcurrently spends about $100 processinga license, and only about 10 percent ofapplicants are inspected.

Let me say that I agree with severalof the goals of this amendment. Weshould look into raising the license feeso the users will be paying for the costof processing their licenses. I also be-lieve we should conduct thorough back-ground checks on potential gun sellers.

If we enact the Brady bill com-promise, we should be only a few shortyears away from a computerized in-stant check system that will providebackground checks in a matter of sec-onds. I assume that this technologywill be available to BATF to check po-tential sellers, just as it will be used tocheck whether potential buyers aredangerous individuals.

But the thing that concerns me mostabout this amendment is BATF's ownestimate that about 80 percent of cur-rent license holders will be driven outof business by the fee increase. Whenwe are considering legislation that willhave such a dramatic impact on thatbusiness, I don't believe the appropria-tions process is the best climate forthoughtful consideration of reform.

I hope that the Senate will continueto consider this issue, but I cannot sup-port this amendment at this time onthis appropriations bill.

17960


Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise inopposition to the amendment offeredby Senator SIMON. This amendmentwould place an unrealistic increase inthe fee for licensing guns. While theremay be merit in reviewing the possibil-ity of increasing the fees, this increaseis not realistic-$10 to $350 is a heftyincrease which is actually an attemptto impose restrictions on guns. Thisamendment would directly affect theresidents of my home State of Mon-tana, and is an attack on our constitu-tional rights.

This just doesn't make sense. It neg-atively affects people who sell guns.Have gunowners committed a crime? Idon't think so. Instead of imposingtough laws on criminals, the pro-ponents of this amendment are ventingtheir frustrations on lawful sellers.

My overall concern of gun-control-type measures is the erosion of ourconstitutional rights. Far too often wehave to fight for these rights-like theright to bear arms and the right of pri-vate property.

When looking at the whole gun con-trol issue, I feel compelled to first stepback, survey the bigger picture of civilliberties, and take a good, hard look atthe Constitution-the Bill of Rights,article II:

"* * * the right of the people to keep andbear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are no ifs, ands nor buts aboutit. It is my opinion that the Govern-ment can no more infringe on the rightto keep and bear arms than it can tam-per with the right of establishment ofreligion or the freedom of speech.

The forefathers gathered and insti-tuted the Bill of Rights for a very goodreason-to protect the rights of the in-dividual citizen from an overbearingGovernment. The Bill of Rights hasserved our spirit of self-reliance and in-dividual responsibility for over 200years. I am afraid that an encroach-ment such as this amendment onlyleads to further erosion of those rightsthat define our freedoms, the very free-doms that make us Americans.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I raise a

point of order that this is legislatingon an appropriations bill. I ask theChair to rule.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair under Senate-

Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Illinois.Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it is

clearly germane, and I raise the ques-tion of germaneness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair, under Senate rule XVI, now sub-mits to the Senate the question raisedby the Senator from Illinois [Mr.SIMON], namely, Is the amendment ger-mane or relevant to any legislativelanguage already in a House-passedbill?

Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas andnays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question before the Senate is, Is theamendment of the Senator from Illi-nois [Mr. SIMON] germane to any legis-lative language already in the House-passed bill?

On this question, the yeas and nayshave been ordered, and the clerk willcall the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen-ator from Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR] is nec-essarily absent.

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that theSenator from Maine [Mr. COHEN] is ab-sent due to a death in the family.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 30,nays 68, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

AkakaBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyByrdChafeeDanforthDeConciniDodd

BaucusBennettBondBorenBreauxBrownBryanBumpersBarnsCampbellCoatsCochranConradCoverdellCraigD'AmatoDaschleDoleDomeniciDorganDurenbergerExonFaircloth

YEAS-30

FeinsteinGlennGrahamHarkinHollingsInouyeKennedyKerryKohlLautenberg

NAYS-68

FeingoldFordGortonGrammGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonJeffordsJohnstonKassebaumKempthorneKerreyLeahyLevinLiebermanLottLugarMackMathews

MetzenbaumMikulskiMitchellMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayPellRockefellerSarbanesSimon

McCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesNunnPackwoodPresslerReidRiegleRobbRothSasserShelbySimpsonSmithSpecterStevensThurmondWallopWarnerWellstoneWofford

NOT VOTING-2Cohen Pryor

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On thisvote, the yeas are 30, the nays are 68.The judgment of the Senate is that theamendment is not germane. Therefore,the amendment falls as not germane.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move toreconsider the vote and move to laythat motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.EXCEPTED COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ON PAGE 31,

LINE 14

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thepending question is the committeeamendment on page 31, line 14.

The Senator from Arizona.

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, theSenator from Arizona would like toknow what the order for business is. Isthe committee amendment the pendingamendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thepending amendment is the committeeamendment on page 31, line 14.

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I amadvised that the Senator from New Jer-sey [Mr. LAUTENBERG] is prepared toenter into a time agreement perhapswith the Senator from Kentucky andoffer an amendment.

I know it is the wish of the majorityleader that we might proceed on thisbill, and I wonder if the Senator fromKentucky has a comment regardingthat.

We would like to move ahead on thisbill. We have several outstandingamendments that we need to get to,and that is one of them.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Kentucky.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I answermy colleague this way, that I am per-fectly willing to enter into a timeagreement with the distinguished Sen-ator from New Jersey. We have talked,and I think we have an agreement. Heis here. If I could have 15 or 20 minutesbefore we start, that is probably notwhat he wants to do.

Mr. DECONCINI. That is all right.Mr. FORD. When this amendment

comes, I am more than happy to enterinto an hour equally divided and have avoice vote at the end of that withouthaving a rollcall vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I say to the man-ager, that would be my understandingas well, and at a time of convenience tothe manager. My preference is about ahalf an hour from now. I have anothercommittee meeting.

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, Ihave not fully consulted here. If theSenator would stay here, maybe wecould get an agreement to take this upby 12 o'clock.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ab-sence of a quorum has been suggested.The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call theroll.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that I may be al-lowed to proceed for 5 minutes as if inmorning business.


ADMINISTRATION IMMIGRATIONPROPOSALS

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, onTuesday morning, our President-and

17961


he is our President, regardless ofparty-announced legislative proposalson expedited exclusion of illegal aliensand increased penalties for criminalalien smuggling.

I have carefully reviewed those pro-posals, and I believe they constitute avery good start. Many of the provisionsare similar, even identical, to those intwo bills I introduced earlier in theCongress to address alien smugglingand asylum abuse.

Many provisions are similar to thework product of Senator FEINSTEIN,who has taken a serious and vivid in-terest in this, which is very pleasing tome because I intend to work closelywith her on these issues.

There are, perhaps, some partisan as-pects to immigration reform, refugeematters, asylum. But, by and large, allof us know that the first duty of a sov-ereign nation is to control its borders.To do that we have to do certainthings. I think many of us are ready todo that in a way which does not smackof nativism, or racism, or xenophobia,or all the stuff that is usually outthere when you try to do something re-alistic. But I support very much mak-ing entry with fraudulent documents,or no documents-make it a groundsfor exclusion with an expedited hearingand then exclusion of those who cannotestablish a "credible fear"-those arethe words, "credible fear of persecutionin the home country."

I support increased penalties foralien smugglers. I support using ourracketeering-our RICO laws-to pros-ecute organized smuggling gangs. Isupport those provisions in the admin-istration's proposals but I see someproblems with other aspects of thePresident's bill. They are notunsolvable problems. But a primarypurpose of asylum reform is to elimi-nate some of the many layers of appealpresently available to an alien claim-ing asylum. This overemphasis on proc-ess-it is almost an obsession withprocess-has created a backlog of hun-dreds of thousands of these cases.These cases can drag on for manyyears. Sometimes these people-often-get more due process than does anAmerican citizen under similar, or dif-ferent, circumstances.

The President's proposal-this is thedisturbing one to me -would create anew corps of superasylum review offi-cers, outside of the Immigration Serv-ice. I think the Attorney Generalwould like to see-I would-bringingthat group back within the Depart-ment of Justice. But they would reviewall cases where the alien is found notto have a credible fear of persecution,if he or she were to return "home." Re-member, none of them really wants togo home because if you are really anasylee, the minute you reach the coun-try of freedom you are "home"-inquotation marks. At least you areaway from the country that is perse-

cuting you. But no, they come to thesecond country, third country, fourthcountry-then here. We must stop that.

I support a supervisory review of ascreened out case. If it is said of a per-son, "You do not have a credible fear ofpersecution," I think there should beindeed a supervisory review. But I amtroubled by the administration pro-posal to create a new group whichmight be outside the ImmigrationService to review every single deniedcase. I think that is getting right backinto the ponderousness of the process.

The purpose of my bill and the ad-ministration's proposal is to create afast, firm, and fair system of dealingwith asylum claims by persons whoenter this country illegally. I think wecan assure fairness with a supervisoryreview without the cost of delay in re-view by a member of some superasylumreview officer corps.

Another concern with this proposal isadequate resources. We too often haveenacted good immigration reform leg-islation but have failed to provide ade-quate funding. As a result, we have hadlegislation which has proven ineffec-tive. A good example is the employersanctions provisions of the Immigra-tion Reform and Control Act of 1986,legislation that has never been fullyand effectively enforced by the Immi-gration Service due principally to thelack of adequate resources and, ofcourse, the other reason is because thedocuments presented have all beenfraudulent and gimmicked beyond be-lief. Until we have some form of uni-versal identifier, some form of counter-feit-resistant document, we will nothave reform. That can be done in anonintrusive way.

Because, unless we handle the prob-lems of illegal immigration and gim-mickry, we will lose our compassionfor legal immigration and bringing inwhat is now a very generous number,900,000 people a year-1 million if youwant to count it a little differently.Nevertheless we passed that law. Wedid not provide the funding for the in-vestigators needed to properly enforceit. If we do not provide adequate fund-ing for the doubling of our asylumcorps and proper funding for sufficientdetention space to hold these alienswho have entered illegally until theirclaims can be heard, the bill will not beeffective. Asylum backlogs will con-tinue to grow and the new procedureswill have no deterrent effect. The ad-ministration and the Congress must becommitted to finding the resources toproperly fund asylum and anti-smuggling legislation, and we cannotsimply take the money from other im-migration activities. That agency is al-ready underfunded.

So I do appreciate the efforts of theadministration to address this growingproblem. I suggest several changes inthe President's proposal but there ismuch in the proposal I can support and

will. Much of it is essentially in accordwith my own activities with immigra-tion reform bills.

It is a good first step, and there ismuch, much more to do. I thank thechair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous con-sent that I might proceed in morningbusiness for a period not to exceed 15minutes.


THE NOMINATION OF RUTH BADERGINSBURG

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I amgoing to use this lull in the proceedingsto make my statement on the nomina-tion of Judge Ginsburg, which is sched-uled for debate on Monday. But I wantto use the time now.

An affirmative vote for Judge RuthBader Ginsburg to be Associate Justiceof the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates is not as easy for me as it is formost, if not all, of my Senate col-leagues. While I have no doubt abouther being eminently well qualified forthe position, I am greatly concernedover the course of the confirmationprocess that not enough questions havebeen answered at the confirmationhearings. At her hearings before theJudiciary Committee, Judge Ginsburgdeclined to answer most of the sub-stantive questions which the membersaddressed to her.

I believe, and I think many of theother Senators believe, that she shouldhave answered more questions. I amconcerned that her confirmation, onthe heels of previous confirmations,only leads the Senate further down theroad of unwelcome precedent for futurenominations.

Until 1925, no nominee had ever ap-peared before the Senate or any of itscommittees to testify. Testimony by anominee did not become routine untilJustice Felix Frankfurter was nomi-nated in 1939, and even into the 1940's anominee to the Supreme Court refusedto appear before the committee to tes-tify and was confirmed.

For years, nominees took a consist-ent position that they would discussonly their records and their back-ground, but they declined to discusslegal philosophy either in the particu-lar or in the abstract. Despite the factthat the Supreme Court became moreand more active in decisions which af-fected all Americans through the 1950'sand 1960's, still, nominees to the Courtdeclined to answer questions about ju-dicial philosophy.

My service on the Judiciary Commit-tee began in 1981, and I have beenthrough eight Supreme Court con-firmation hearings. As we have pro-ceeded, more and more we began ques-tioning nominees about judicial philos-ophy. The nominees have had to tread

17962

July 30, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE

a fine line as we developed our inquir-ies to delve more deeply into a nomi-nee's judicial philosophy.

Given the fact that no one wants toappear before a judge who has predeter-mined the case, it is understandablethat nominees have not and should notdiscuss their views on particular caseswhich may come before the Court. Atthe same time, nominees generallyhave discussed their opinions on cer-tain well-settled issues or on fun-damental principles.

A major turning point came duringthe hearings on Judge Robert Bork.Members of the Judiciary Committeeengaged in detailed examination ofJudge Bork's judicial philosophy onmany issues such as free speech, judi-cial review, and the proper means of in-terpreting the Constitution. JudgeBork did not discuss his position inspecific cases that might come beforethe Court, but he gave the committeeand the Senate a detailed look at hisjudicial philosophy.

Among other nominees in the 1980's,there was a wide degree of difference onhow far they would go in answeringquestions. For example, Justice O'Con-nor expressly endorsed the death pen-alty as an appropriate sanction. Shehad previously voted for it as an Ari-zona legislator. Justice Kennedy re-fused to give his view on the death pen-alty.

Judge Souter endorsed the death pen-alty as constitutional, even though he,like Justice Kennedy, had not ex-pressed a view before the hearings.

Against this background of evolvingstandards, Judge Ginsburg answeredfew questions. For example, I asked herabout her concurring opinion in a suitby Members of Congress under the WarPowers Act. From this point, I tookthe inquiry to the next level and in-quired about Congress' authority to de-clare war.

When I asked Judge Ginsburg wheth-er the Korean military engagementwas a war as contemplated by the con-stitutional provision giving Congresssole authority to declare war, she re-sponded that she could not answer thequestion without briefing and oral ar-gument.

Obviously, no case is going to comebefore the Supreme Court involving theKorean war, and it seemed to me thatthis question required only a common-sense response regarding a matterwhich had arisen during her youngadulthood. It was an appropriate ques-tion for Judge Ginsburg to give ussome insight into her approach to animportant historical event. She couldhave answered without prejudging acase which would actually come beforethe Court.

Judge Ginsburg also refused to an-swer questions regarding her approachto the propriety of Supreme Court deci-sions overturning longstanding statu-tory interpretations that Congress had

implicitly accepted. I asked her abouther view of the Supreme Court actingas a superlegislature and SupremeCourt activism as a revisionist court inchanging the law and making new lawin two major cases in the late 1980's.One was Wards Cove, a 5-4 decisionhanded down in 1989 which overruled aunanimous Supreme Court decision inthe Griggs case in 1971 interpreting the1964 Civil Rights Act. Despite the factthat Congress had let the Griggs deci-sion stand for 18 years, the SupremeCourt proceeded to change the law inWards Cove. When I inquired about herview of the propriety of that kind of ju-dicial activism, she declined to answer.

Similarly, she declined to respond tomy inquiry involving the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Rust versus Sul-livan which upheld the Department ofHealth and Human Services' 1988 regu-lation imposing the gag rule. That ruleprohibited counselors from telling cli-ents about the opportunities for abor-tion where Federal funds were involvedunder title X of the Family PlanningAct of 1970.

For some 18 years, that kind of coun-seling was permitted, but in the face of18 years of congressional acceptance ofthe regulation, the executive changedthe regulation and the Supreme Courtupheld this change by a 5-4 vote.

My inquiries regarding these twocases related to judicial philosophy ona nominee's deference to Congresswhen longstanding interpretations of astatute, one by the Supreme Court andthe other by the executive branch,which had received longstanding con-gressional approval, were overturnedby the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates.

I was not asking Judge Ginsburgabout how she would vote in any par-ticular case, but more broadly abouther approach to judicial respect forcongressional intent in such caseswhere Congress, in effect, acts inten-tionally by not acting at all. She de-clined to answer those questions.

These are only a few examples ofJudge Ginsburg's refusal to discuss herjudicial philosophy. While she wasmore forthcoming than recent nomi-nees about her support for the right ofa woman to make reproductive choices,she declined to answer many questionson a wide variety of subjects.

Mr. President, there is no doubtabout Judge Ginsburg's overall com-petency. She has an outstanding lawschool record, having attended Harvardand Columbia, being a member of theLaw Review at both schools. She has asuperb record as a practicing lawyer,having argued cases before the Su-preme Court of the United States andwon many landmark decisions. Herwork as a jurist over 13 years has beensimilarly outstanding.

One of her strong traits has been towrite brief opinions, which is ratherunusual for a judge or a Justice. As she

articulates it, she likes to keep it tightand right. Some of her opinions resem-ble Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes', aSupreme Court Justice noted for brev-ity in opinions, in clarity and brevity.In fact, it takes a long time to write ashort opinion.

So her record is outstanding, and forthe reason of her record and her pros-pects as a Supreme Court nominee, Isupport her nomination for the Su-preme Court of the United States. Butin voicing that support, I articulate areservation and a concern about thelimited number of questions which sheanswered. In fact, I believe the Senateand the Judiciary Committee are re-sponsible for setting the stage with somuch approval in advance that hernomination was realistically assured.

We have seen, as a matter of prac-tice, that the nominees to the SupremeCourt of the United States answerabout as many questions as they reallyhave to answer. When Chief JusticeRehnquist was up for confirmation forthe Chief Justice's position, for whichhe was ultimately confirmed on a voteof 65 to 33, and there was a realisticquestion about his confirmation tothat position, he answered very signifi-cant questions saying that the Con-gress of the United States did not havethe authority to take away the juris-diction of the Supreme Court on firstamendment issues. That, to me, Mr.President, is a very important subject.If we do not establish the supremacy ofthe Court to interpret constitutionalissues, then our entire constitutionalstructure is in doubt.

Judge Ginsburg did answer the ques-tion that she supported Marbury versusMadison, which established the su-premacy of the Court on constitutionalissues, but she would not answer thequestion as to whether the Congresscould take away the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court to hear cases under theequal protection clause of the 14thamendment. The equal protectionclause of the 14th amendment is vitalfor individual rights. Judge Ginsburg,as a lawyer, established her reputationon cases involving equal protection ofthe law. That has been a principalsource of her interest in advocacy andthe issue which she has pushed: wom-en's rights.

But if the Congress has the authorityto take away the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court, the Court could notpass on those is.ues. And, in fact, wewould not have constitutional protec-tions. That is why I pressed for an an-swer from Judge Ginsburg. I did notget the answer.

It is my concern that we have slidback from the scope of questions towhich we have received answers fromJudge Bork who answered a greatmany, as I think realistically he hadto, to have a chance for confirmation,although he was not confirmed.

My reading of the record shows JudgeGinsburg answered fewer questions

17963

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 30, 1993than Justice David Souter, than Jus-tice Anthony Kennedy, than JusticeSandra Day O'Connor. Only JusticeAntonin Scalia answered fewer ques-tions than Judge Ginsburg.

Judge Ginsburg did concede that theopinion of the Senate and the voice ofthe Senate in confirmation stands onan equal footing to the opinion of thePresident in making the nomination.But the Senate cannot discharge thatconstitutional authority unless it haslatitude to receive answers to its ques-tions.

My judgment, Mr. President, on anominee depends on a balancing of hisor her record before the hearings-aca-demic, professional record-and thenominee's willingness to be responsiveand the substance of those responses.Despite my substantial reservations onthe responsiveness of Judge Ginsburg, Iam voting for her because of her out-standing educational, professional andjudicial qualifications.

I hope that it will not be necessary toreject nominees in the future becauseof lack of responsiveness to Senators'questions, but I do express the reserva-tion, the caveat, that it may becomenecessary as the only way to establishthe appropriate balance to enable theSenate to perform its constitutionalduty on advise and consent.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledgethe outstanding assistance given to mein preparation of the hearings them-selves by my former law partner, MarkKlugheit, of the Dechert, Price &Rhoads firm in Philadelphia, and myJudiciary Committee chief counsel,Richard Hertling.

Mr. Klugheit came to Washington toserve as counsel for the ImpeachmentCommittee on Judge Alcee Hastingsand then returned as an unpaid volun-teer for the preparation of hearings onJudge Ginsburg. Mr. Klugheit assem-bled a team of summer associates fromDechert, Price & Rhoads. And I thankJennifer Arbittier, Scott Rose,Silvestre Fontes, Rachel Nosowsky fortheir research assistance, and also, inmy Judiciary Committee office, AlisonSerxner who assisted Mr. Hertling. Itwas a voluminous task to read morethan 300 published opinions, a largenumber of unpublished opinions, andsome 75 articles which Judge Ginsburghad written to prepare for the ques-tioning and evaluation of the nominee,and I thank those individuals for theirassistance.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the appendix to my writtenstatement to which I earlier referred tobe printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the appen-dix was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

APPENDIX-EXAMPLES OF JUDGE RUTH BADERGINSBURG'S REFUSALS TO ANSWER OR NON-RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY MEM-BERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURINGHER CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, JULY 20-JULY22, 1993The CHAIRMAN. So what did you mean when

you said, Judge, in the Madison lecture thatit ended race discrimination in our country,perhaps a generation before State legislatorsin our southern States would have budged onthe issue? Are you saying that the Nation it-self may have been in sync with Brown andthe Court not that far ahead of the Nation,and it was only that part of the country?

Judge GINSBURG. Well, the massive resist-ance was concentrated in some parts of thecountry, that there was discriminationthroughout the country I think is undoubt-edly the case. But there was certainly a posi-tive reaction in Congress, not immediately,but first the voting rights legislation startedin the fifties, and then the great civil rightslegislation of 1964. The country was movingtogether.

The CHAIRMAN. It was a decade later. Mytime is up, Judge. You have been very in-structive about how things have moved, butyou still haven't-and I will come back toit-squared for me the issue of whether ornot the Court can or should move ahead ofsociety a decade, even admittedly in theBrown case, it was at least a decade ahead ofsociety. The Congress did not, in fact, reactin any meaningful way until 10 years later,and so it moved ahead.

One of the things that has been raised, theonly question that I am aware of that hasbeen raised, not about you personally, butabout your judicial philosophy in the popu-lar press and among those who follow this, ishow does this distinguished jurist distin-guish between what she thinks the Court isentitled to do under the Constitution andwhat she thinks it is wise for it to do. Whatis permitted is not always wise.

So I am trying to get-and I will fish for itagain when I come back-I am trying to geta clear distinction of whether or not youthink, like in the case of Brown, where itclearly did step out ahead of where the Na-tion's legislators were, whether that was ap-propriate. If it was, what do you mean by itshould not get too far out ahead of society,when you talked about that in the Madisonlectures?

But I will give it another try. I think younot only make a great Justice, you are goodenough to be confirmed as Secretary ofState, because State Department peoplenever answer the questions fully directly, ei-ther.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, we have over-turned those decisions now in the CivilRights Act of 1991. I am asking you whetheryou are willing to express an opinion aboutthose cases that were overturned since itwon't come back up to you and since now wehave legislated in those particularly cases.

Judge GINSBURG. I don't want to write aLaw Review commentary on the SupremeCourt's performance in different cases. Ithink the record of what went on in thelower courts, in some of those instances theSupreme Court's position was contrary tothe position that had been taken in thelower Federal courts, and in the Ward's Covecase, in the Patterson case. And it is alwayshelpful when Congress respond to a questionof statutory interpretation, as it did in thiscase, to set the record right.

Now, sometimes I spoke of the PregnancyDiscrimination Act and Title VII. I thinkthat Congress was less clear than it could

have been the first time around. Maybe thatwasn't apparent until the case came up. Con-gress reacted rather swiftly and said, yes,discrimination on the ground of pregnancy isdiscrimination on the ground of sex, andTitle VII henceforth is to be interpreted thatway.

So I think it is a very healthy thing. It ispart of what I called the dialogue, particu-larly on questions of statutory interpreta-tion; that if the Court is not in tune with thewill of Congress, that Congress doesn't let itsit and makes the necessary correction, thatcan be even on a constitutional matter-andI referred to the Simka Goldman case yester-day when Congress fulfilled the Free Exer-cise Clause more generously than the Courthad.

Senator METZENBAUM. My question to youis: How would you view an antitrust casewhere the facts indicated that there hadbeen anti-competitive conduct but the de-fendant attempted to justify it based on aneconomic theory such as business efficiency?

Judge GINSBURG. I am not going to be anymore satisfying to you. I am afraid, than Iwas to Senator Specter. I can answer anti-trust questions as they emerge in a case. Isaid to you yesterday that I think the onlycase where I addressed an antitrust questionfully on the merits was in the Detroit news-paper case where I think I faithfully-or atleast I attempted to faithfully interpret theNewspaper Preservation Act and what Con-gress meant in allowing that exemption fromthe antitrust laws.

Senator METZENBAUM. Indeed you did.Judge GINSBURG. Antitrust, I will confess,

is not my strong suit. I have had, as youpointed out, some half a dozen-not manymore-cases on this court. I think I under-stand the consumer protector, the entre-preneur, individual decisionmaking, protec-tive trust of those laws, but I can't give youan answer to your abstract question anymore than I could-I can't be any more satis-fying on the question you are asking methan I was to Senator Specter on the ques-tion that he was asking.

If you talk about my particular case-andit was a dissent. There was a division in thecourt on how to interpret that statute. Ithink I tried to indicate what my approach-I think that case indicates what my ap-proach is in attempting to determine whatCongress meant. But I can't, other than say-ing I understand-

Senator DECONCINI. Let me put it this way,Judge: Do you think there is any merit to aprocess within the judicial branch of govern-ment, which would permit the removal of ajudge?

In other words, what if a constitutionalamendment set up or gave authority to thejudicial branch to set up procedures wherecomplaints could be heard? A judge wouldhave an opportunity to respond and to havea hearing and to appeal the hearing, andwhat have you, and that the Supreme Courtor somebody within the judicial branchcould, in fact, dismiss the judge. Have yougiven that any thought?

Judge GINSBURG. I understand that theKastenmeier Commission that has beenlooking into the discipline and tenure ofjudges, has come out with a preliminarydraft of its report that takes a careful-thatcommission has been operating for sometime and it is supposed to have a very broadcharter to take a careful look at all theseareas.

I will read the final report when it comesout with great interest, but I don't feelequipped to address that subject.

17964


Senator DECONOINI. Let me ask you this: Isit offensive to you, if the judiciary had au-thority to discipline judges and that dis-cipline could also include dismissal?

Judge GINSBURG. We already have an in-house complaint procedure, as you know.

Senator DECONCINI. Yes, I do.Judge GINSBURG. And I think that has

worked rather well. It has never come to thepoint in all my 13 years there has been an in-stance calling for removal.

Senator DECONCINI. My problem, Judge, iswhat do you do with a convicted judge?Wouldn't it be appropriate for the judiciaryto have a process that they could expel thatjudge? I mean I am giving you the worst ofall examples. I am not talking about the liti-gant who is unsatisfied, doesn't like the rul-ing of the judge and, thereby, files a com-plaint as to moral turpitude of the judge,and then you have a hearing on that. I amtalking about something that is so dramaticas a felony conviction of a judge.

Judge GINSBURG. Senator, I appreciate theconcern that you are bringing up, and it isn'thypothetical, because there are judges whoare in that situation. They are rare, one ortwo in close to a thousand.

Senator DECONCINI. I think there are two.Judge GINSBURG. So I appreciate the prob-

lem. When I was asked before about camerasin the court room, I was careful to qualifymy own view, saying I would, of course, givegreat deference to the views of my col-leagues on this subject, and there is an ex-periment going on now in the Federal courtson that subject.

Here I don't even feel comfortable in ex-pressing my own view, without the view ofthe U.S. Judicial Conference on this subject.I know that the judges are going to study theKastenmeier report, and they are going toreact to it. I can just say that I appreciate itis a very grave problem.

Senator LEAKY. Does that mean that theFree Exercise Clause and the EstablishmentClause are equal, or is one subordinate to theother?

Judge GINSBURG. I prefer not to address aquestion like that; again, to talk in grandterms about principles that have to be ap-plied in concrete cases. I like to reason fromthe specific case and not-

Senator LEAHY. Let me ask you this: Inyour view of the Supreme Court today-or doyou have a view whether the Supreme Courthas put one in a subordinate position to theother?

Judge GINSBURG. The two clauses are onthe same line in the Constitution. I don't seethat it is a question of subordinating one tothe other. They both have to be given effect.They are both--

Senator LEAHY. But there are instanceswhere both cannot be upheld.

Judge GINSBURG. Senator, I would prefer toawait a particular case and--

Senator LEAHY. I understand. Just trying,Judge. Just trying.

Senator SIMON. If I could get you to be alittle more specific here, if I can ask, not incommenting on the substance of the Alvarezcase-incidentally, he was tried in theUnited States and not found guilty-butwere you at all startled, when you heardabout the results of the Alvarez case?

Judge GINSBURG. If I may, Senator, I wouldnot like to comment on my personal reac-tions to that case. I think I told you whatmy view is on how U.S. officials should be-have, and I would like to leave it at that.This was a decision of the United States Su-preme Court that you have cited, and I havereligiously tried to refrain from commenting

on a number of Court decisions that havebeen raised in these last couple of days.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chair-man.

Just to try to pursue that a little bit fur-ther, Judge Ginsburg, could you talk at allabout the methodology you might apply,what factors you might look at in discussingSecond Amendment cases should Congress,say, pass a ban on assault weapons?

Judge GINSBURG. I wish I could, Senator,but all I can tell you is that this is anamendment that has not been looked at bythe Supreme Court since 1939. And apartfrom the specific context, I really can't ex-pound on it. It is on area in which my courthas had no business, and one I had no ac-quaintance as a law teacher. So I really feelthat I am not equipped beyond what I al-ready told you, that it isn't an incorporatedamendment. The Supreme Court has notdealt with it since 1939, and I would proceedwith the care that I give to any serious con-stitutional question.

Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. So I have twoquestions. The first is, in a situation likethis, if the property owners challenge thegovernment action as a taking of their prop-erty, what principles should the SupremeCourt look to in evaluating that claim?

Judge GINSBURG. Senator, the question hassome kinship to the one that Senator Pres-sler raised about the wetlands. It is justevolving. There is a clear recognition that atsome point a regulation does become a tak-ing. When that point is reached is somethingto be settled for the future.

We do know that, as I said in the Lucascase, when the value of that property is to-tally destroyed as a result of the regulation,that is indeed a taking and there must becompensation for it. Reliance is certainlyone of the factors that goes into the picture.

As I say, this is just a developing area andit is still evolving and I can't say any moreabout it than is reflected in the most recentprecedents in the Nolan case and in the re-cent Lucas case of the Court. But there cer-tainly is sensitivity to the concerns. One,the regulations for the benefit of the commu-nity, which you mentioned, and the other isthe expectation, the reliance of the privateperson, and those two will have to be bal-anced in the future cases coming up. But thisis an area that is very much evolving now,and I can't say anything more than I havesaid about it so far.

Senator HATCH. But in the InternationalFunding case, you cited Harris v. McRae fa-vorably in support of a distinction you drewbetween funding restrictions that are per-missible and those that are not. Irrespectiveof your views on the policy of abortion fund-ing, do you agree that Mayer and Harris,those two cases, were decided correctly?

Judge GINSBURG. I agree that those casesare the Supreme Court's precedent. I have noagenda to displace them, and that is aboutwhat I could say. I did express my views onthe policy that is represented. That is notsomething that anybody has elected me tovote on,

Senator THURMOND. One vocal critic of thisdecision said that the Supreme Court hasnow created an entirely new constitutionalright for white people. Judge Ginsburg, doyou believe this to be an accurate assess-ment of the Shaw decision? And if confirmed,how will you approach challenges to reappor-tionment plans under the Equal ProtectionClause?

Judge GINSBURG. Senator Thurmond, theShaw case to which you referred was re-turned to a lower court. The chance that it

will return again to a higher court is hardlyremote. It is hardly remote for that verycase. It is almost certain for other cases likeit. These are very taxing questions. I thinkthat the Supreme Court has redistrictingcases already on its docket for next year, sothis is the very kind of question that wouldbe injudicious for me to address.

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, there wouldn't beany question about separation of powers pro-tecting Members of Congress from applica-bility of criminal laws against this. Whatprincipal distinction can there be made ofhaving employment laws or civil rights lawsapplied to Congress?

Judge GINSBURG. I think if you ask thecounsel to the Senate, who argued very effec-tively in a number of Speech or DebateClause cases before us, for a brief on thatsubject, that office would be best qualified toaddress it.

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, I believe beforelong you will be addressing it sometime. Ob-viously that would keep you from respondingto specific question, but--

Judge GINSBURG. If and when, I would havethe benefit of the wonderful brief, I hope; thebriefs on both sides. But that is the dif-ficulty that I confront in this milieu. I am soaccustomed-and as a judge, it is the onlyway I can operate, on a full record, withbriefs, and not making general statementsapart from a concrete case for which I amfully prepared with the arguments that par-ties make on both sides.

Senator BROWN. I wanted to cover one lastarea, and it may be an area you would prefernot to explore. If you do, I would certainlyunderstand.

I believe earlier on Senator Cohen and oth-ers had brought up a question with regard tohomosexual rights. I would not expect you torule on something or advise on somethingthat may well involve a case. But there is aquestion I thought you might clear up for usthat I think has some relevance here.

The Equal Protection Clause, as we haveexplored it this afternoon, deals, in effect,requiring sex-blind standards with regard toGovernment action or legislation, or maywell deal in that area. That relates to classesof people; in this case, males and females.Obviously there are other classes.

In the event we are dealing with forms ofbehavior--and I appreciate that is not a fore-gone conclusion with regard to homosexuals.That is open to debate whether or not it is aclass of people or forms of behavior. But inthe event we are dealing with forms of be-havior, would they come under the provi-sions of the Equal Protection Clause?

Judge GINSBURG. Senator Brown, I am soglad you prefaced this by saying you wouldunderstand if I resisted a response, becausethis is an area where I sense that anything Isay could be taken as a hint or a forecast onhow I would treat a classification that isgoing to be in question before a court, andultimately the Supreme Court. So I think itis best that I not do anything that could beseen, be used as a prediction of how I mightvote with regard to that classification.

Senator COHEN. What about sexual orienta-tion?

Judge GINSBURG. Senator, you know thatthat is a burning question that at this verymoment is going to be before the Court basedon an action that has been taken. I cannotsay one word on that subject that would notviolate what I said had to be my rule aboutno hints, no forecasts, no previews.

Senator PRESSLER. Are you uncomfortablethat the Constitution's Bill of Rights doesnot extend to Native Americans?

17965


Judge GINSBURG. I can't express my per-sonal view on that subject. I know that thereare many people who care deeply about theconcept of tribal sovereignty. I am not amember of one of those communities and, asa judge, I will do my best to apply faithfullyand fairly the policy that Congress sets withrespect to tribal governance.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair andyield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that I may be ableto proceed for a period of time not toexceed for 5 minutes to introduce abill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered. The Chairrecognizes the Senator from Vermontfor 5 minutes.

(The remarks of Mr. JEFFORDS per-taining to the introduction of S. 1327are located in today's RECORD under"Statements on Introduced Bills andJoint Resolutions.")

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Ithank the Chair and I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair recognizes the Senator fromMontana.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that I may proceedfor 5 minutes as if in morning businessto introduce a bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.FEINGOLD). Without objection, it is soordered.

The Senator is recognized for up to 5minutes.

(The remarks of Mr. BURNS pertain-ing to the introduction of S. 1328 arelocated in today's RECORD under"Statements on Introduced Bills andJoint Resolutions.")

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair andyield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absenceof a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded tocall the roll.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent to speak as inmorning business for 10 minutes.


REINVENTING GOVERNMENTMr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise

early this afternoon to present the firstof several statements that I am goingto make over the next few weeks on anissue that is really foremost in theminds of many: Reinventing govern-ment. It has also been foremost in theminds of famous authors, DavidOsborne and Ted Gaebler in their now-celebrated book entitled "ReinventingGovernment." The term reflects a ne-cessity-brought on by taxpayer ani-

mosity-for the Government to becomemore responsive and more effective inits delivery of Federal services. Tax-payer hostility is a result of not justpoor service delivery under our presentsystem, but also deals very much withthe bottom line cost-maybe evenmore so.

The challenge to advocates of re-inventing government is to reform theFederal bureaucracy so that it per-forms better, is less wasteful, and al-lows the decisionmaking, or ownershipof Government, to occur closer to thecitizenry. In theory, at least, every-thing, save the Constitution, should beon the table, and it would not hurt ifwe were on the table either in the re-spect of always reviewing, to a consid-erable degree, whatever we do.

The macro benefits to the countrywould be enormous: More effectiveservice delivery, less Governmentspending, a need for fewer taxes, and abuild-down of the national debt.

All that stands between these worthyobjectives and the present system is areinvention of Dunkirk. Somehow, anenormous, countervailing political willmust build. This, alone, can turn backthe dynamic of growing governmentcaused by special interests feeding offof the present, failing structure. Thepeople want such change. It is up to usto deliver.

As I proceed with my floor state-ments between now and the August re-cess, together with others of my col-leagues, I intend to advance such anagenda, beginning with the principlesand standards for an effective reinven-tion. I intend to draw on the insights inOsborne and Gaebler's book, on myown experiences attempting to re-invent the Defense and Justice Depart-ments during the 1980's, on such man-agement legends as W. EdwardsDeming and Peter Drucker, and onmany others.

In essence, this agenda would be anextension of my defense reform effortsof the 1980's, only this time applied toall of Government.

I would especially like to commendthe work and leadership of SenatorROTH of Delaware, Mr. President. Sen-ator ROTH has advanced the cause ofreinventing Government in the Senate,and in a bipartisan way, for manyyears, even before this administrationcommitted itself to reinvention. Theadministration's stated commitmentgives us the foundation for true bipar-tisan cooperation. Many of us on thisside of the aisle have long advocatedfundamental reform of the FederalGovernment. We look forward to theopportunity to form a bipartisan coali-tion for constructive change.

The centerpiece of Senator ROTH's ef-forts has been two reinvention bills,each of which I have cosponsored.

One of the bills has passed the Con-gress already-the Government Per-formance and Results Act. This act is a

model for setting performance goals forFederal programs so that effectivenesscan be measured and monitored.

A second bill, the Reinventing Gov-ernment Act, would establish an entitysimilar to the Base Closure Commis-sion that would tackle the tough issuesof which programs and agencies to re-form and how.

In my view, this approach hasworked effectively. It has worked onperhaps the thorniest issue of all facinga representative institution such asours: the closing of military bases inour States and districts.

If Government indeed is to be re-invented, and democracy revitalized,this law would give us the best chanceof succeeding, in my view. Again, thatis something that we need to commendthe Senator from Delaware [Mr. ROTH]for his leadership in this area.

I should also commend the efforts ofthe President and the Vice President.Under their leadership, the seed hasbeen planted for real Government re-form at the highest levels of our Gov-ernment. In my view, if it took Nixonto go to China, it will take Democratsto reform the welfare state. I havelived and practiced under this adage: Ittook a CHUCK GRASSLEY and other Re-publicans to reform the Defense De-partment and to lead the way to thefreeze of the Defense budget in the1980's. I believe in this principle, and Ican testify to its effectiveness.

Mr. President, I would like to helpdefine what it means when we use theterm reinventing government. Consist-ent with any organizational reform orturnaround, we must begin with fun-damental questions: What is it that wedo now, and what is it that we shouldcontinue to do?

In the case of reforming Government,this means asking and, of course, an-swering the following three questionsabout those things the Federal Govern-ment now does:

First of all, what functions shouldthe Federal Government continue to doas it does now; that is, rowing? That iswhat I call rowing, like rowing a boat.

Second, what functions should theFederal Government no longer do, butrather maintain a guiding hand in;that is, steering? That is what I callsteering, like steering an automobile.

Third, what functions should theFederal Government turn over to Stateor local governments, to communities,to foundations, or to private industry;that is, drydocking, I call it, to coin aphrase.

Answering these three questions willcreate three categories for Federal pro-grams and functions. I would like tolook at them separately.

First, there is rowing. These are pro-grams that the Federal Governmentmust do. One example would be admin-istering to the national defense. This isa function that the Government mustdo itself to provide for the collectivedefense of the Nation.

July 30, 199317966


Second, there is steering. These areprograms in which the Government'spolicymakers may want to maintain ahand in the decisionmaking process.But their resources for service deliverywould not be relegated to the civilservice. Private and/or semiprivate en-tities could compete for service deliv-ery to ensure effective service. One ex-ample of this could be welfare reform,where State governments and commu-nities supplant the role of the FederalGovernment's AFDC Program. Underthe present system, the civil serviceholds a monopoly on service delivery.It seems to me this must be corrected.

Finally, there is the third aspect,what I call drydocking. I have coinedthis phrase to signify a third categoryof functions that is not provided for inOsborne's and Gaebler's book entitled"Reinventing Government."Drydocking is for those programs wewould determine should no longer haveFederal Government involvement. Forexample,. perhaps we would decide thatthe Federal Government should nolonger be involved in the passengerrailroad business.

The expected benefits from rein-vention are compelling, both tangiblyand politically. The results would yieldcheaper, more effective Governmentservices; in the longer run, we could ex-pect lower budgets and fewer taxes; wewould gain competition for the deliv-ery of Government services; we wouldrestore gradual ownership f our Gov-ernment to the citizenry, and, in theprocess, we would revitalize democ-racy.

Mr. President, I intend to, and I amsure the Senator from Delaware [Mr.ROTH] as well, in forthcoming floorstatements, will be more specific withregard to standards and principles forreinventing government. We will bemore specific about how the FederalGovernment can row better, and how itcan transition from rowing to steering,or from steering to drydocking of var-ious programs. Today, I merely wantedto discuss the broader context of theissue, and to begin the process of defin-ing what it is and how it should be ap-plied.

Mr. President, I would also like tocall my colleagues' attention to themost recent issue of the magazine Wethe People. The magazine is, fittingly,dedicated to reinventing the Nation'slegislature. It is put out by the Con-gressional Institute, a reform-mindedthink tank here in Washington.

The July/August issue of We the Peo-ple is, in essence, a primer on reinvent-ing Government. I commend its read-ing to my colleagues, and I will askunanimous consent to include severalarticles from the issue in the RECORD.These articles comprise good back-ground reading as we prepare to tacklethe system.

In closing, Mr. President, I onceagain commend the leadership on this

issue of the President, the Vice Presi-dent, and the Senator from Delaware[Mr. ROTH]. I hope we can continue aconstructive, bipartisan approach toreforming the Federal Government andto restoring much of the ownership ofGovernment back to the citizenry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent to print in the RECORD the mate-rial to which I have referred.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Congressional Institute, July-August 1993]

IN THE MARKET FOR A REVOLUTION

It seems like long ago but, last November,the voters "reinvented" one-fourth of theU.S. House, in the greatest turnover sinceTruman, to trigger reform and create jobs.Most of the 110 freshman Reps have sincedropped from sight.

In their place, we watch (1) an Administra-tion unable, after months of being unwilling,to govern from the innovative center; and (2)a Congress taking back its Constitutionallead on fiscal matters, yet refusing to for-sake tax-and-spend-in short, wielding theright powers in the wrong direction.

None of this is revolution; all of it is re-volting. The Political Class can't afford anymore such triumphs-and American politicscan't take any further self-destruction. Forwhat has "politics" become? A noxiousnexus, joining the force of government withthe farce of campaigns, sheltering a welter ofoccupations that comprise a unique indus-try.

And the shelter is falling down: To viewpolitics as an industry is to be startled, be-cause this vast sector has no satisfied cus-tomers-except those it buys. (No wonder thewildcatter Perot's "favorables" are back tothe peaks of June '92.)

But our diagnostic isn't wholly caustic. Infact, this magazine is filled with proposalsfor public life after the "near-death" of poli-tics as we've known it. We favor ManagedRevolution.

So we dedicate this issue to those whowould lift politics beyond protest, and gov-ernment beyond greed. Our most receptivereaders could be those of you who'd like toadd some innovation to career-preserva-tion-they often mix.

WHO STRANGLED POLITICS?

McGovern liberals, Reagan conservativesand everyone in-between, need a new frame-work-because the political system and cul-ture shared by everyone 35 and over is on itsdeathbed, Three megafactors are both causeand symptom:

Divided Government. Every time they pre-vent either party from having unified com-mand, voters hand a blank check to everyexcuse-making, responsibility-repellent polin the Washington Beltway. Having gridlockbetween White House and Congress (insteadof between an in-party and its loyal opposi-tion) elevates the visibility of "politics"while reducing its substance.

During the Nixon Era, and again underGeorge Bush, a bipartisan establishmentmangled the economy: Exploding deficits,hyper-regulation, feeding bureaucracy with-out exercising governance. Each time, be-cause neither major party had deniability,both were judged guilty, and a floodtide ofcongressional turnover began.

From 1974 through '80, Congress was givena vast transfusion of new blood. (Duringthose four election cycles, no one spoke of

term limits, as 120 new Republicans, andeven more new Democrats, came into theHouse.) From 1992 through at least '96, lookfor the same kind of cumulative legislativepurge. Divided Government ended last No-vember, but its policy-debilitation dragson-and so, in congressional terms, will theelectorate's retribution.

MASS FISCAL IGNORANCE. Everyoneknows deficit spending is out of control, buthow many truly know why? Much of the mid-dle-class thinks it pays for everything andreceives little or nothing. This comfortingnotion was stoked by every candidate whoraised a rhetorical fist against Washington,from Wallace to Nixon to Carter to Reaganto Clinton. A populist message-"you're get-ting shafted"-wins the election, then ren-ders deficit-reduction a hard sell: Why sac-rifice benefits if you believe you're alreadybeing shorted?

INTENTION DIVORCED FROM RESULT.This problem is so vast you can hardly see it.Since LBJ's time, the U.S. political systemhas split "meaning well" from delivering thegoods. Both Beltway and citizenry share inthis syndrome. How? Each signs off on ex-panding programs that don't work. Beltwayofficials do this because every failure"earns" more resources. The related interestgroups keep the officeholders in line. How?With polls showing broad-based support formore spending, on nearly everything. Thisracket is insane-but it also makes perfectsense.

THE LOGIC OF INSANITYWhy would a populace devoid of faith in

Washington want it to' spend more on mostdomestic functions? Because (a) the majoritydoesn't want to sound, or feel, hardhearted;and because (b) out-of-power politicians rou-tinely claim the additional money can betransferred from "waste, fraud and abuse."

A third reason people tell pollsters theyfavor more social spending is lack of an al-ternative: Precious few officeholders, eitheron the right or on the left, fight for "activistgovernment"-meaning the delivery of re-sults, along with responsibility, to the de-serving needy while supplanting the welfare-state provider class. The coalition that doesthis will win big. The Kemp/Weld/ArmeyEmpowerment agenda, and the originalDemocratic Leadership Council, were half-way there.

But Kemp, as HUD Secretary, lost out to aWhite House whose grounding principle wasa compromising position; the DLC's programhas been swamped by Capitol Hill hog-feed-ers.

These defaults appear totally irrational-so there must be some powerful reasons forthem. Those reasons emerge starkly whenpolitics is viewed as a unique industry, late-ly under siege.

The Political Class manages an "industry"headquartered in Washington, D.C. Over 60years, the sector's command of national re-sources tripled. But, since 1989, everyone in(or near) politics has sensed somethingwrong with the fundamentals. And just whois "everyone"?

The national parties. Most lobby groups.An Administration whose optimism turnedto panic in 120 days. The New York newsmedia, though technically apolitical andnon-governmental. Innovative policy-formu-lators wondering if they should trade intheir green eyeshades for a place at the hog-trough. Deficit-fighters contemplating redink forever. And Congress's newer Membersof Congress-afraid to risk their jobs eventhough the job-description is being rewrittenby what seems an unfriendly fate.

17967


By any corporate yardstick, this vast sec-tor-i.e. much of the federal government,and most of the Political Class that fightsover it or feeds on it-is not far from melt-down. Its claim on resources remains at all-time highs, but "market-share"-measuredby voter turnout, and compounded by thelowest two-party presidential showing in 80years-is collapsing.

People don't like how Congressmen arechosen and campaigns are financed. Peoplewill not "contribute" more in taxes until thestructures already in place bolster personalsafety, SAT scores and budgetary honesty.Principled partisan differences are respected'e.g. the 1991 Gulf War debate, whenCongress's approval rating soared). But whendebates are choked off by House rules, orlimited to personal dirt and short-term partygain, the entire political industry looks des-perate, and sometimes childish. Thedebtmeter runs, the industry rots, and RossPerot digs in.

GOVERNING FROM NEW MODELS

Despite all of that, society is soldiering onand muddling through. If you're not trappedin the inner-city (or the more alarmingschool systems), it's hard to be resolutelypessimistic.

Though most people fear for their kids'long-run economic prospects, they remainupbeat with their individual lives. New-fash-ioned Capitalism is resilient, technologicalgrowth miraculous. Venture capital explodedduring 1992, reversing a four-year slide. Var-ious types of spiritual renewal pick upsteam, and Hillary Rodham Clinton befud-dles hardliners with an overture to "respon-sible fundamentalist Right."

As spokesman for the alienated middle-class, Perot also knows, "what works." So dothey. Much of what America's Political Classneeds can be found on CNBC, in your dailypaper's business section, even among friendsand relatives: If they went through the autoindustry's convulsions or (more recently)computer-sector turbulence, or if they earn aliving as designers and retailers, they have asense of industrial catharsis: What it costs,what it delivers.

Who defines the next future? How do de-partmental heads cope? Why are charitabledonations and "third-sector" voluntarism atall-time highs? And what will we learn bysystematically contrasting their effective-ness with the provider classes of the welfarestate? How does Al Gore's "reinventing gov-ernment" effort square with recent cor-porate-turnarounds?

And what about the other technology-buffon the national-reform stage this summer? IsRoss Perot the fellow to do for political re-form what Jack Welch did at General Elec-tric, David Kearns at Xerox, and EckhardPfieffer at COMPAQ?

If so, is it wise to "bet the entire com-pany" on a wildcatter who understands com-mand but not leadership? If it isn't the Polit-ical Class needs revolutionary alliances withentrepreneurial entities to create alter-native reform agendas, and regain market-share, fast.

In Perot, the American system hasn't con-fronted anyone so procedurally radical since1932-35, when Gov. Huey Long came atFranklin Roosevelt from the left and rightsimultaneously. As for Perot's movement,you have to go back a whole century beforeLong to find a plausible precedent.

NEITHER PARTISAN NOR ELECTEDOn May 28, a landmark Nightline showed

an eerie video from 1969: Perot, not yet 40, istelling Ted Koppel himself that the move-

ment's name will be United We Stand and de-ploy electronics to bypass the power struc-ture. Perot followed through-boy, did heever: 24 years later, we have his "thirdparty."

Yet neither its donors nor its local activ-ists are known to the real parties. AGermond/Witcover column explains: "Chap-ters from the neighborhood level on up arebeing formed of individuals who have shelledout the $15 that Perot has set as a member-ship fee, and chapters are being coordinatedinto congressional district organizations asgrassroots political pressure groups" (Na-tional Journal 6/5/93).

What precedent exists for a public yetanonymous, anti-political, middle-classpower drive? It's a stretch, but try this one:The Freemasonry Order of the 1820s. NoPerot, but their influence was pervasive.

The mysterious disappearance of a rene-gade lower-class stonemason (after he hadthreatened to expose the Order's secrets), ledto the first national political convention:Not of Masons, but of opposing forces crying"conspiracy." As this grassroots polarizationwracked party elites, their leaders (AndrewJackson and Henry Clay) created a rival net-work of organization-thus adding roots to atwo-party system.

And now that two-party system, severelyweakened over decades, is being supplantedby something that isn't a party. "United We.Stand America" displays traits of an army, aprofessional association, and a cult. Not thatits leaders are Utopian, but they are angry,and focused. A comprehensive Schneider/Molyneux "Ross Is Boss" report in the MayAtlantic Monthly contained this sketch:

"We saw no evidence of a sinister agendaamong the activists we met. These were edu-cated people, and they made a great displayof tolerance. Women and minorities weregiven prominent positions in the local Perotorganizations. When Perot supporters talkedabout 'us' against 'them', they meant thepeople-all the people-against the politi-cians."

The Perot people comprise a force thatmay or may not ever form a government-but they can purge the enities that aren'toffering governance now. They sound readyto destroy politics to save democracy. And,if they enjoy another 15 months like the last15, the 1995 Congress will swear in severaldozen freshmen elected as neither Democratsnor Republicans. (You heard it here first.)

A REPUBLIC OF PIE CHARTSDoes anyone come close to Perot in mar-

keting treatments for an America less andless governable? If not, who did we recentlyhire to do the governing, and what are theydoing instead? Making no headway on theissue where Perot has done his best work.

Perot's anti-deficit "infomercials" are thefirst countrywide candor since Jack Kennedyexplained the costs of government, and theobligations of citizenship. Instead of buildingon Perot's best issue, scattered House Mem-bers are hedging their bets-by paying $15 tojoin the local United We Stand. Since whenis a good insurance policy so cheap?

A much sounder hedge would be to makethe party they already belong to-whetherDemocrat or Republican-more in-tune withalienated centrists. Since most Senators andRepresentatives are not part of Congress'sOligarchy, they would have much less to loseby talking straight (for starters) about reve-nues and outlays-i.e. who pays and whoprofits.

Local opinion-leaders might step up to theplate and help Congress with the hard workof redesigning the national budget. How

should this door be opened? By replacingpolls and interest groups with genuine exer-cises in public judgment (for the concept, seeO'Donnell on Yankelovich, pages 15-17).

We should try budget-balancing workshopsand focus groups. (The Roosevelt Center andthe Committee For a Responsible FederalBudget did some pioneering work with thisformat back in 1986.) Let Labor locals andKiwanis volunteers do the show-and-tell, il-lustrate the tradeoffs, and chair the "mark-up."

That removes the budget's first-cut frominterest groups and their Appropriations-subcommittee hostages. It's one way to de-mocratize Perot's pie-chart-and-bar-graphTV show. Without such citizen-participationbreakouts, federal legislators face moresleepless nights, as resentment piles everhigher on the doorsteps of officialdom.

FROM PEROT TO LINCOLNBorrowing a George Will epithet, this

essay has used "Political Class" to encom-pass both national parties; a befuddled Ad-ministration; wayward wonks and deraileddeficit analysts; corporate operatives whose"product" is amendments and exemptionsover goods and services; the non-businessmedia; and hundreds of fretful Reps and Sen-ators unable to risk their jobs to deliver oneither a dream or a duty.

Well, guess what: This magazine's produc-ers are par of the Class and so, most likely,are you. "We" are waste-deep in a decompos-ing industry. And most of "us" are stillthinking too small, or too predictably.

When a trusted product fades or an old par-adigm cracks, Peter Drucker says, in seekingreplacements, to aim high. Here's a try: It'stime for what Lincoln called "a new, birth offreedom." The public sector must be rejuve-nated, or reassembled, to replicate the pri-vate sector's results (not to mention theplanet's experimentation in self-govern-ment).

The Political Class needs to facilitate thesupplanting of its corrupt and obsolete ele-ments. By using technology, by allying withproven private-sector reformers, and by pro-ducing measurable gains, those ready to gov-ern may win back a fed-up middle class.

Most realms of business practice what Jo-seph Schumpeter called Creative Destruc-tion. Now it's the politicos' turn-and, ascandidate Perot used to say, "it won't bepretty." Perhaps it could be profound? Mr.Lincoln's most insightful biographer re-mains Harry Jaffa, who noted on page 361 ofCrisis of the House Divided:

"Lincoln insisted . . . that there must besome conviction, usually embodied in theform of a story that can be told, com-prehended, and taken to heart by all, whichproduces a sense of community and unitesthe hearts of those who call themselves fel-low citizens. Without that fellow feeling,there is no basis for mutual trust, and wherethere is no trust there can be no freedom.For political self-government involves gov-erning and being governed, and where thereis insufficient trust, the idea of making oth-ers the trustees, for however limited a time,of our dearest interests does not makesense." So trust must be rebuilt.

Along the trail, political operatives mightfind balance, even empathy, in Lincoln's re-alism, expressed in 1842, right after his 33rdbirthday: "Few can be induced to labor ex-clusively for posterity; and none will do itenthusiastically. Posterity has done nothingfor us; and theorize on it as we may, prac-tically we shall do very little for it-unlesswe are made to think we are at the sametime doing something for ourselves" (VanDoren, Literary Works p. 287).

17968

July 30, 1993 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATELincoln merged vision with human nature

to build a new political coalition on the Re-public's oldest ideals. One way to "aim high"is to look for something equally grand now.That's why we filled this We The People withproposals for public life after the near-deathof conventional politics. Again, it is forthose who would take politics beyond pro-test, and lift government beyond greed, byadding governing innovation to career-pres-ervation.


MEMO TO TIE VICE-PRESIDENT: REINVENTIONMINUS CONTENTION WILL BARELY BE WORTHA MENTIONIt will look more decentralized, and em-

ployees who actually do the work will feelthey have more authority to make decisionsthat affect the quality of their departmentor agency to do the job. It will be, in short,a high-quality, low-cost government-Vice-President Al Gore, Washington Times 6/3/93.

His final sentence is a valuable dream. Ifit's to be more than a pipedream, the Vice-President's National Performance Reviewneeds help. After all, how do elected officialsnavigate wholesale reform of a national gov-erning structure-the kind of change where,at least theoretically, everything but theConstitution itself is on the table? Startwith a broad landscape of realities:

Macro: America won't have a majority for"reinvention" until it's half-complete anddemonstrating some value. In other words,most voters don't care about this issue; thatleaves to elites and opinion-leaders the bur-den of making it news, and making it credi-ble. And yet, even among the Political Class,reinvention has found few fans.

The bureaucracy's wariness is understand-able. But what about Members and activistswho have a wider constituency? Why arethey leaving this once-a-decade govern-mental shape-up effort to Al Gore and his in-siders?

Because ideological liberals favor Big Gov-ernment even if it's ineffective. And becauseideological conservatives tolerate Bad Gov-ernment if its costs are contained. The alter-native-enhancing a federal program's pro-ductivity, i.e. the social value returned on adollar taxed-might raise Beltway and CivilService esteem. Why should the Right helpthem out of the public-opinion doghouse?And yet, if Conservatives hold to thismindset, they'll regain power with no planfor innovative federal stewardship.

Macro: The polls DO reveal support forgreater efficiency. To the extent this part ofGore's message reasonates, it is raising ex-pectations. For what? For a painless fix: TheVic-President's road show risks becomingthe newest version of removing "waste, fraudand abuse."

When the populace thinks 20 to 40 cents ofeach tax dollar is "wasted," it becomes sim-ple to solve the budget crisis: Cut back Na-tional Science Foundation grants and UnitedNations salaries. Sting the beekeepers. Weedout welfare chiselers. Blow away Civil Serv-ice featherbedders. Take prisoners off SocialSecurity. Shouldn't these simple steps, plusa few other changes, bring the books nearbalance? A majority thinks so; Gore himselfmust know better.

Yet he is preparing the country for a lim-ited program the can't possibly reach thepresumed and popular goal, i.e. zero deficitunder a "high-quality, lost-cost govern-ment."

Last summer, Ross Perot broke out of asimilar box while tens of millions watched.

By mid-October, his new approach-find thefacts, share the numbers, ask for help, spreadthe pain-had gained credibility as a cor-porate-style turnaround plan. A majority as-sumed, and probably still does, that Perot'stax hikes would go to deficit-reduction. Theybelieve nothing of the kind about Congress'sJune budget crescendo.

So why would Al Gore position his Admin-istration for ridicule or (at best) zero payoffon the governmental-reform issue? This is aserious question.

Macro: An organism only reforms when theoverall gain-in money, power, self-respectand public acclaim-outweighs the pain. Thefuel for all reform is motivation-via visionat the concept level, and by personal incen-tives in daily worklife. The strongestmotivators, for each executive and service-deliverer, must become known, if an institu-tion's incentives are to be changed to sup-port productive behavior. (For how to man-age Congressmen to end deficit spending, seeWalter Williams, page 2.)

Macro: What gets measured gets achieved.And, in a reformed federal structure, two dis-similar realms need measurement: Proc-esses, and outcomes. Most reinventors andmanagers are comfortable tracking process-but this is gibberish to the public, and notexciting even to most people reading thismagazine. (Where are Mike Dukakis andDave Stockman when you need them?)

By contrast, outcomes-measurement justmight engage the public. Anything thatlinks tax dollars to services received-theway, say, people correlate federal gas taxeswith interstate-highway improvements-en-hances the national dialogue. It also mightmake some of the remedies (whether by Goreor more radical teams) mass-marketable,thus triggering some quality-control forfield offices and at the citizen level.

Now for the not-so-good news. Except forhiring journalist David Osborne, Gore andCo. have done a great many things wrong:

As of late June, they were working 99%with insiders. The Grace Commission worked99% with outsiders. Either approach isdoomed. You need half and half: Outsiders,led by company turnaround experts, deliverhonest auditing, help redefine the vision, andforce new priorities. The Civil Service's in-siders are partners in setting strategy, part-ly because they will not carry out what theyhave not helped set.

Gore's endless anecdotes stoke the na-tional delusion that substantial savings willcome from making the feds' trains run ontine. (This is not unlike counselling a cancerpatient to join a health club and get a mani-cure.)

By overselling the payoff and underratingthe investment, the National PerformanceReview is setting itself up to be whacked inthe face-with an infomercial pie-chart:Great fun for Perot and the GOP, but it can'tbe what Al Gore and the President wouldprefer for fall.

From what we hear, Gore's drift is towardderegulating and empowering the senior bu-reaucrats plus some field offices. He assumesthese managers and providers know what thecitizenry wants (and they'll have no reasonto disagree with the assumption). But thiswould be like Hechinger's "serving the pub-lic" soley by puffing-up top management, ex-panding flextime, and copying a competitor'sstore design-the kind of steps that comelong after markets are surveyed and businessmission reevaluated.

In government, if you start with, and stopwith, provider flexibility, you invite PeterDrucker's "den of thieves." As Indianapolis

Mayor Stephen Goldsmith observes, "Thepurpose of government accounting has al-ways been to prevent officials from stealingmoney-not from wasting it." That purposeshould not be lost by reinventors. To decen-tralize management, without competitivepressures and mission-reinvention, is to in-vite not excellence but multimedia versionsof the GSA Mess and Operation III Wind.

While Gore reinvents, his colleaguesreflate and reregulate. The list is long: TheFamily Leave Act is another entitlement,with costs marked. The Labor Departmentfights to outlaw "striker replacement,"which is a sop to union-power while it sapsjob-market efficiency. The proposed Na-tional Service Program, seemingly frugal,will nationalize part of American volunta-rism-and leave at a fundraising disadvan-tage all the unfavored charities. And, afterall the various budget schemes, not a singleprogram is slated for repeal (no, not even thebeekeepers subsidy).

The most egregious decision is to raisemarginal income tax rates. This policy hasno leg to stand on. It doesn't raise nationalincome. It won't raise the U.S. Treasury in-come. It reduces the real progressivity of thetax code. It pushes the well-off back to eva-sion and avoidance. It discourages work, sav-ings, investment and job-creation. It willboost the incomes only of tax lawyers andlobbyists (not empathetic occupations).

Nearly everyone else-West Germany,Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Britain,India, Denmark, even Sweden-reduced mar-ginal rates during the 1980s. To raise themnow is mindless. Yet everyone in the Admin-istration supports doing so, never mind thatit will be a blow to efficiency (tax manipula-tors don't need further encouragement) andeffectiveness (America's level of work, sav-ings and investment).

Granted, tax policy isn't within Gore'stask-force purview; all the same, the Clinton/Gore policy initiatives to date fit no defini-tion of reinvention.

For the serious reinventor, many prin-ciples of sociology, corporate governance,and political coalition-building need to rein-force one another: It's an inside/outside job,with public/private-sector pooling. So it isn'tencouraging to dwell on this passage fromJames H. Perry in the June 23 Wall StreetJournal:

"More than 200 reinventing specialists,most of them career federal employees; aretoiling in two downtown offices analyzing allthe data. The agencies, with 800 more em-ployees working on the project, are doingtheir share too; this week, top managers atthe Labor Department held a three-day re-treat to come up with ideas on reinventingtheir part of the government. The goal is toproduce a final report, free of jargon andanalysis by highly paid consultants, in Sep-tember."

I always cheer jargon-avoidance, but pro-ducing a report is not "the goal."-FRANKGREGORSKY.


DECLARATIONS OF REINVENTION(By Kris J. Kolesnik)

It's something called "reinventing govern-ment," and the Clinton Administration is se-rious about it. Most serious of all is Mr.Gore, [who] says he wants to invent a gov-ernment that will be decentralized, that willuse market principles, and that will "treatAmericans like customers again." What pri-vate industry has done in the way of total-quality management, he wants to do for the

17969

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 30, 1993federal government.-James Perry, WallStreet Journal 6/23/93 p. A16

Nearly all the media coverage reflects awidespread misunderstanding of the Vice-President's National Performance Review.Should Mr. Gore himself share the same mis-understanding, his noble endeavor to "re-invent government" may miss the mark mis-erably.

Rather than systems ard administration,you have to begin with culture and purpose.The roots of a real "reinvention" are, first,letermining what government should andshould not do. Once this determination ismade, place appropriate limitations on whatit does. Only then comes systematic re-form-so that what government must do, itperforms not only more efficiently, but alsomore effectively.

Is the Gore Group moving toward thisideal? Or will it talk up "reinventing" whilesettling for "streamlining"? To "stream-line" government is to allow the governmentto keep doing nearly everything it does now,but with administrative savings. This avoidsthe fundamentals of purpose and priorities.

The process of reinventing any part of thegovernment ought to resemble how a CEOwould restructure and turn around a majorprivate-sector corporation. To merelystreamline Ford Motor Co. would not havedone the trick. Unless the Veep's task forceemulates the Ford turnaround (or other suit-able models), this 1993 Reinvention risks be-coming the biggest public disappointmentsince... the Grace Commission.

WHY DO WE HAVE AN SBA?The Small Business Administration makes

its loans primarily to the least stable firmsand to those rejected by other lending insti-tutions. Default rates are consequently veryhigh. SBA loans contribute to an inefficientmarketplace and cost taxpayers a bundle.

The genuine reinventor will ask: Shouldthe government be making such loans in thefirst place? Can other, non-federal, sourcessupplant the federal role? Effective reinven-tion is prefaced with the right questions. Itreplaces all two-dimensional propositions-e.g., streamlined government vs. bloatedgovernment-with more fundamental inquir-ies.

Why should the federal government be de-ciding small-business loans? What problemshas the SBA's approach wrought? Is there amore effective way to administer the loans?How can we limit federal obligations andstill produce results? Why not help smallbusiness by. simply stopping the hindrance ofit by other federal action?

Financial markets are today much moreefficient, and much less susceptible to mar-ket failures, than when the SBA programwas established. So an effective move mightbe a return loan decisions for small busi-nesses to the financial marketplace. Thenexamine the rest of government policy,searching out whatever hamstrings venture-capital and smaller enterprises.

EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVETwo common terms-but what exactly is

the difference? Efficiency generally relatesto cost. Effectiveness measures performancetoward a purpose or mission. Effectivenessmight yield efficiencies, but it cannot begained through efficiency.

As Peter Drucker once put it: "Efficiencyis doing things right, effectiveness is doingthe right things." A successful enterprise isone that is effective: It performs well-and,the better the performance, the more moneyit will make.

Performance is what allows a business tocompete in the marketplace. Results are

what count, i.e. quality goods and services atthe lowest possible cost. Making a bad prod-uct cheaper does not constitute better per-formance. "Doing things right" when theyare the wrong things can be financially suici-dal.

A government bureaucracy, however, doesnot depend on performance for its revenues.Insofar as the term may be used, "results"for the bureaucracy means a larger budget.And "performance" is the logrolling abilityto increase that budget. Serving the statedneed or requirement becomes a secondaryissue. Money substitutes for policy, PR forperformance.

In such an environment, why would effi-ciency ever be an objective? In fact, it'ssomething to actively avoid-because effi-ciency inhibits budget growth and thereforehurts "performance" in the bureaucraticsense of that word. This is why governmentwhistleblowers are viewed as enemies of thebureaucracy.

Whistleblowers are viewed from within ascorporal germs. And so their supervisors,like white corpuscles, attack the perceivedthreat. Even if inefficiencies are crushed,they grow back again in time.

Effectiveness is equally anathema to thebureaucracy. Its very mode of payment-budget-allocation, i.e. how much of thisyear's total "we" get-put effectiveness atodds with a bureaucracy. The first criticalquestion in determining effectiveness is"What should our business be?" To the bu-reaucracy, this question is the most threat-ening of all, because it might create con-troversy. And controversy can threatenbudget-allocation.

And yet, as stated earlier, the first criticalquestion of true, effective reform is to askwhat the government should and shouldn'tdo. Without an answer, there can be no mis-sion or purpose; without a purpose, what dowe have to measure performance against?

STEERING, ROWING

Perverse incentives are symptomatic ofthe mode of payment. The perverse incen-tives for government "performance"-i.e. fa-voring higher budgets and lower effective-ness and efficiency-must be reversed.

Reversal will come only after we (1) deter-mine what the government should andshouldn't do; (2) set the purpose or missionof government agencies; and (3) create incen-tives for achieving the mission.

That's what the National Performance Re-view should do. First, identify those areasthe government should not be involved in.Then, recommend phasing out those agenciesand employees formerly serving those func-tions. For the remainder, missions and goalsmust be defined, with incentives establishedto facilitate their successful achievement.

This is how you "change the culture." Re-educating federal workers is not enoughwhen they are still rewarded for increasingbudget allocation. They must instead be re-warded for achieving the stated mission.

One way to foster favorable incentives is toinject competition into the government's de-livery of services. In their book ReinventingGovernment, David Osborne and Ted Gaeblercall for a decentralized government in which,more and more, the federal role becomesthat of a catalyst. The authors distinguishbetween a government that "rows" and onethat "steers." Government, they say, shoulddo more steering (setting policy) and lessrowing (delivering services). They suggestusing resources other than those of the fed-eral workforce to deliver services to tax-payers.

The key issue is not always public versusprivate, but competition versus monopoly.

Bureaucracies, note the Reinventing au-thors, "are captives of sole-source, monop-oly-suppliers-their own employees . . . Mo-nopoly suppliers become a problem as soonas policymakers decide to change theirstrategies."

To avoid the supply bottleneck, sayOsborne and Gaebler, policymakers shouldhave at their disposal an array of private,public and other resources that can competefor service delivery. This would let policy-makers seek the best means for achievingtheir goals. The focus would be on perform-ance, and would not be frustrated by "mo-nopoly suppliers."

The absence of the market test in the de-livery of federal services ensures a lack ofthe discipline that would otherwise compeleffectiveness, innovation and a shedding ofobsolete programs.

REINVENTION IN FIVE STEPS

Step one: Determine what is the businessof the various segments of federal govern-ment and what should it be. Another way topose this is, What are we actually doing, andwhat do we need to be doing?

The questions are extremely difficult toanswer: Difficult for one team, for a wholefederal agency, and especially for a Congresswhich should function as an executive boardfor much of the government. Precisely be-cause they are hard questions, the most im-portant thing is to ask them, and then letthe multiple answers collide.

Step two: Those functions not properly thebusiness of the federal government should beturned over to state and local governments,private organizations, churches, commu-nities, foundations and so on. Public employ-ees and agencies that formerly performedthose functions should be phased out.

Step three: for the remaining functions,i.e., those judged a government responsibil-ity, decide whether the federal governmentshould "row" or "steer." For example, thefederal government has a rowing function innational defense and some, but not all, ad-ministration of justice. But should it also de-liver the mail?

Where government once rowed but nowsteers, public employees and agencies for-merly performing those functions could beeliminated or made to compete with othersuppliers. Osborne and Gaebler (on page 31 oftheir book) offer 36 "arrows" in its quiver ofinnovative and other resources as alter-natives to service-delivery by public employ-ees.

Step four: Those functions of governmentthat continue to require rowing must receiveclearly defined missions and objectives. Theymust be measurable; they must beprioritized.

Step five: Measuring performance will de-termine the success or failure of the pro-gram. (As the old saying goes: What getsmeasured gets done.) Results can be auditedby the Office of Management and Budget,with oversight from Congress. OMB mustconstantly question the utility of federalprograms, and force decisions about whicholder ones the federal government should nolonger row.

LEFT IN THE DARK

Reinventing government implies a titanicpolitical struggle; even at the conceptuallevel, it can vex the sharpest mind. It re-quires restoring ownership of government tothe citizenry-or at least to government en-tities closer to the citizenry.

To do so will take years, and require doingbattle with some of the very forces fromwhich the Vice-President is obtaining advice

17970

july 30, 1993 congressional record-house 17921...

Documents