[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 82 (Friday, June 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 
                                  1994

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for 
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1995, and making supplemental appropriations for these departments and 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other 
purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  0912


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4603, with Mr. Montgomery (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Thursday, June 23, 1994, the bill had been read through page 7, line 
22.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $119,904,000; of which not to exceed 
     $3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the off-setting 
     collections credited to this account, $37,000 are permanently 
     canceled.


                amendment offered by mr. smith of texas

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Texas: Page 7, line 26, 
     strike ``$119,904,000'' and insert ``$118,979,000''.

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes a small cut of 
$925,000 in the General Administration account of the Department of 
Justice. This reduction represents a 5-percent reduction in the money 
provided for the Department leadership and the executive support 
subaccounts, which are responsible for formulating policy at the 
Department of Justice.
  This cut misses the crime fighting components of Justice, like the 
FBI and INS, but hits squarely that part of the Department that is just 
as likely to work against our crime prevention efforts as for them. 
This amendment will not in any way muzzle the Nation's watchdog, but 
hopefully it will serve to rouse the ACLU's lapdog.
  Nothing serves as a better point of comparison between the crime-
fighting end and the policy making end of the Department of Justice 
than its ability to staff its top positions. While our jails overflow, 
the Department of Justice--now 2 years deep into the Clinton 
administration--is still unable to fill its leadership positions. As of 
today, Justice has over a 34-percent vacancy rate in its Presidential 
appointee positions requiring confirmation. That is an unbelievable 
record coming from an administration professing to be tough on crime.
  To quote from the C.R.S. report concerning Clinton administration 
appointees:

       While unfilled positions accounted for 20.6 percent of all 
     positions, the situation in each department varied 
     considerably. Eight departments had more than 20.6 percent of 
     their positions vacant, led by the Justice Department * * *

  Being first amongst the worst is not the kind of leadership we need.
  Then again, considering the kind of policies the Justice Department 
has formulated, maybe America should count its blessings. Its litany of 
lulus reads like a Ripley's Believe It or Not.
  Despite a debate by both the House and Senate on the largest crime 
bill in years, the Justice Department never bothered to deliver a crime 
bill for the administration. Based on this performance, if Justice had 
been a television show, it would not have been ``America's Most 
Wanted,'' but ``America's Funniest Home Videos.'' Thanks to the 
Department of Justice, the administration played no role in the crime 
debate.
  While the Department of Justice was doing nothing when it came to a 
crime bill, it was doing less than nothing when it came to child 
pornography. Perhaps the sickest, most depraved crime most Americans 
can think of, child pornography should have no defenders. Yet the 
Department of Justice, through its handling of the Knox case, gave 
pornographers a helping hand by making it harder to convict someone on 
child pornography charges. Rather than fighting on the grounds of the 
tough standards, which had already won numerous convictions, the 
Justice Department incredibly requested that the case be sent back to a 
lower court to be tried under a looser standard.
  It's record on immigration is no better than it's record on 
litigation. Despite the fact that State after State has filed suit 
against the Federal Government for allowing a flood of illegal 
immigrants to continue to enter America, Justice has done nothing as 
far as proposing a solution to the problem. Again nothing was their 
best performance on the issue.
  Just a few months ago, aptly on April Fool's Day, the INS moved to 
discontinue fingerprint checks that had resulted in stopping thousands 
of criminals from reaching our shores illegally. The INS' rationale for 
discarding this $3 million program? Cost. Yet, at the same time, 
Justice was able to fund a $30 million campaign to advertise alien 
naturalization.
  If that were not enough, the INS Commissioner recently claimed at an 
Immigration Subcommittee hearing that the INS did not even need the 
6,000 additional border patrol agents that the House had already passed 
overwhelmingly. Tell that to California, to Florida, to Texas, and to 
every local government that is struggling just as hard to meet the 
costs of illegal immigration as Justice is in avoiding any solutions.
  Just like the Justice Department ignores the problem of illegal 
immigration, so too it has ignored the will of this Congress when it 
has come to allowing HIV-infected individuals to enter the United 
States legally. Last year, Congress overwhelmingly passed and the 
President signed a resolution maintaining the bar to HIV-infected 
individuals entering the country. It was ignored this year when the 
Attorney General granted a blanket waiver for participants of the Gay 
Games taking place right now in New York. While it is a terrible 
precedent for U.S. immigration policy because of the potential for 
fraud and abuse, it is not new for Justice to substitute social policy 
for immigration policy.
  Almost a year ago to this day, Justice likewise decided not to appeal 
a Federal judge's decision to allow 158 HIV-infected Haitian immigrants 
to enter the United States. Again, despite a clear immigration policy 
to the contrary.
  I could go on, but the trust is that 5 minutes is not enough time to 
do justice to the injustice that the Department of Justice has done to 
it's watchdog role.
  This amendment says one thing to the people at Justice who need to 
hear it: with a multibillion-dollar deficit, we can no longer afford to 
reward bad behavior and poor performance. It will not cut one cent from 
the law enforcement part of the Justice Department. Instead, hopefully, 
it will serve to separate the Keystone from the Cops.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment sets forth a litany of 
concerns with regard to the Justice Department, its administration, and 
problems that are occurring in the country with regard to immigration. 
The point, I think, of his amendment is to, in some indirect way, 
punish the Justice Department through the cutting general 
administration account of that Department.
  Mr. Chairman, he represents that it will get to the concerns that he 
expressed. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that this cutting amendment 
will do actually just the opposite. And while he represents that the 
amendment will not hit the crime-fighting components of the Justice 
Department, indeed, the amendment will hit the crime-fighting 
components of the Justice Department. Over half the funds in this bill 
are for costs associated with immigration judges. In this area and 
other areas of the bill we are enhancing appropriations for immigration 
initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, his amendment would cut that. This amendment will 
reduce enhancements placed in the bill to increase the number of 
immigration judges as a part of the President's expedited deportation 
initiative. I am sure that the gentleman is extremely supportive of the 
President's expedited immigration deportation initiative, and I know 
that to the extent that this amendment would cut that, it has an 
unintended result as far as he is concerned. I think he should 
understand that.
  Indeed, the amendment will cut seven new immigration judges, which 
are badly needed, and I know that my colleague would agree that they 
are badly needed. Certainly he would agree they are badly needed 
because of the concerns he expressed in support of his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we need those judges badly to remove illegal aliens, 
criminal aliens from our country. I would hope that his amendment would 
be opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I would refer the gentleman to page 20 of the report, 
which is--the page in the report that describes funding for general 
administration. I would refer him to the next to the last paragraph on 
that page where it says,

       In addition to the management and administrative functions 
     of the Department, this account also funds two very important 
     programs: (1), the Executive Office for Immigration Review 
     [EOIR] which includes the Board of Immigration Appeals, 
     Immigration Judges, and Administrative Law Judges. These 
     judges decide whether to admit or exclude aliens seeking to 
     enter the country, and whether to deport or adjust the status 
     of aliens whose status has been challenged.

  Indeed, while the gentleman was under the impression that the 
amendment would not cut in these areas, it certainly does. We would 
urge opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out again that 
the $925,000 cut is 5 percent of the Department leadership and 
executive support subaccounts, which goes directly to policy. If this 
money is taken out of the other accounts that my friend mentioned, for 
example, and adversely impacted immigration or expedited deportation, 
then certainly that would be because of the appropriations ignoring the 
intent of those who originated the amendment. I hope that would not be 
the case. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman does understand 
however, that this is general cut to the fund and would cut the 
accounts that I represented.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Will the gentleman yield one more time?
   Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I certainly do understand that, and I appreciate 
my friend pointing that out, but again if the appropriators do take 
into consideration the intent of those who offer the amendment, the 
money would not come out of the funds that would jeopardize immigration 
or efforts at deportation, it would come out of the funds for the 
Department leadership and executive support subaccounts.
   Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand the 
motives behind the gentleman's amendment. I would simply suggest that 
it is misdirected and could very well have an unintended result as it 
cuts these crime-fighting accounts. As a matter of fact, we are putting 
in these exact same accounts significant increases for immigration 
initiatives, a 25-percent increase, so I would hope that the amendment 
would be defeated.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this cut for a couple of different 
reasons. I want to send a signal to the Attorney General's office that 
they should not be stonewalling the Congress of the United States on 
critical issues facing this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year there was a question about whether or 
not Mr. Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce, had received a payoff 
from the Vietnamese Government in the amount of $750,000, with more to 
come, to normalize relations with that country, even though we did not 
have a full accounting of our POW-MIA's, the 2,300 that were left 
behind over there.
  A man named Binh Ly came to Congress and talked to me and many 
others, and he indicated, without any equivocation whatsoever, that 
there was substantial evidence from a man named Mr. Hao down in Florida 
that Mr. Brown had, in fact, agreed to this deal.
  We even had evidence that there was a wire transfer, the FBI verified 
there was a wire transfer, of a large sum of money from the Vietnamese 
to a bank in Singapore, as Mr. Hao said there was, which was where the 
payoff point was to be. The FBI was investigating this case, they were 
called off the case, and there was a grand jury investigation down in 
Miami.
  We asked for a special prosecutor for this. We were stonewalled by 
the Justice Department, and instead, the Attorney General sent one of 
her right-hand persons from the Justice Department down to Miami to 
conduct the grand jury investigation.
  As a result, even though there was what I consider to be overwhelming 
evidence, they said there was not enough substantial evidence to 
indict, so they whitewashed that. We were stonewalled.
  Now comes the investigation of Whitewater and Mr. Fiske. There is 
evidence, according to many sources, according to many sources there is 
evidence and allegations that there is a laundering of drug money, 
laundering of drug money through the Arkansas Development Finance 
Institution which was established under then President Clinton or then 
Governor Clinton, and that there were connections through banks to BCCI 
and others. We have asked Mr. Fiske, the special prosecutor, and the 
Attorney General to expand this investigation. Once again, we are being 
stonewalled.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been stonewalled in the past regarding Mr. 
Brown, not only by Justice but by the White House, the Commerce 
Department. We on the Republican side cannot get any information out of 
this administration from any area of the Government.
  Now here we have the Whitewater investigation, and there are a lot of 
people who believe that through the Mena Airport, there were millions 
of dollars' worth of drugs that came into Arkansas that were laundered 
through the Arkansas Development Foundation Corp., and we cannot get 
this investigation expanded. We cannot even have congressional hearings 
here on the floor of the House, and it is our responsibility.
  The people of this country need to know the facts. Everything is 
being subpoenaed and kept in secret, and nobody can get the 
information. Documents are being shredded at the Rose law firm down 
there. There was a mysterious fire at one of the banks where the 
accounting was taking place as far as all the documents pertaining to 
Whitewater, and thousands of documents were destroyed. People have been 
killed, believe it or not, mysteriously. Murders have taken place of 
people that were supposed to give evidence regarding this.
  What do we want? All we want are congressional hearings. If we cannot 
get that, which we should have, we should have an expansion of the 
Whitewater investigation, Mr. Fiske and Janet Reno, to go into all the 
details of this.
  I am going to tell the Members that even if the Justice Department 
does not do this, we on the minority side of this aisles are going to 
keep after it until we get the answers. We are going to stay after it 
until we get the answers. If there was a laundering of drug money 
through governmental institutions in Arkansas, it needs to be made 
public.
  If public figures like Patsy Thomasson over at the White House, there 
are questions that the chief personnel officer at the White House may 
have been involved in this kind of operation. She worked for the 
Lasater Co., as chief financial officer during the time Mr. Lasater was 
convicted of cocaine trafficking, and during the time he was being 
investigated for cocaine trafficking, the Governor of Arkansas, Bill 
Clinton, gave $665 million in bonds to him to sell, during the time he 
was being investigated.

                              {time}  0930

  Patsy Thomasson knew of all the financial transactions of that firm 
and there was between $60 million and $107 million in money that went 
through a bonding account, and the man who handled the account did not 
even know about it, his name was Dennis Patrick, and the money was 
transferred to Lasater bank accounts in three different banks around 
this country and some of it, we believe, went offshore . We may have a 
person at the White House, Patsy Thomasson, that may have been involved 
in this. The Arkansas Development Foundation may have been laundering 
drug money and there are people who worked there, who worked in the 
institution, one of the leading people, Mr. Larry Nickles, who worked 
in the Arkansas Development Finance Institution, says that money was 
being laundered, drug money was being laundered through that 
governmental institution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General of the 
United States, should not stonewall this. Neither should Mr. Fiske. 
This investigation must be expanded. If there was laundering of drug 
money, then let the chips fall where they may. If it involves people at 
the White House, if it involves even the President himself, let the 
chips fall where they may.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is the people of this country 
have a right to know. We in the Congress have the right to conduct an 
investigation, and the reason I am supporting this amendment of cutting 
900-some thousand dollars from the Justice Department is to send a 
signal to Janet Reno and the Justice Department and to Mr. Fiske that 
we want a thorough and complete investigation of all aspects of 
Whitewater and the possibility of laundering of drug money through the 
Arkansas Development Foundation. For us to do less as a Congress, for 
the Justice Department to do less as the Justice Department being the 
highest branch of the legal system in this country is a dereliction of 
their responsibility and our responsibility and we are not doing the 
job the American people sent us here to do.
  For that reason I urge adoption of this amendment if for no other 
reason than to send a signal to Janet Reno and Fiske and everybody else 
connected with this that we want a complete and thorough investigation 
of Whitewater, drug trafficking, and everything else associated with 
it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is really sad that I have to come down here 
and support this kind of amendment. I think it is sad that we have a 
situation where we cannot seem to get the attention of the Attorney 
General in this country. We have an Attorney General that has decided 
to use her office to set social policy in this country. I think it is 
really unfortunate that we have to send a signal to the Attorney 
General of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to send a very clear 
message to the policymakers at the Department of Justice that the 
American people and Members of Congress have had it with the 
irresponsible and destructive policies that seem to be coming out of 
the Attorney General's office. After just 2 years under the Clinton 
administration, the Department of Justice has decided last year not to 
send a crime bill to Congress, yet they are taking credit for the crime 
bill that is moving through the House and the Senate and now is sitting 
in the conference committee. They refuse to take a position and change 
their position on weakening its opposition to the child pornography 
after several votes of the House and the Senate sending them a very 
clear message that the Members of the House and the Senate do not think 
that the Attorney General is doing the right thing in weakening our 
child pornography laws. They have failed to make an effective effort to 
combat illegal immigration and do not seem to be very interested in 
stemming the tide that is crossing our borders illegally. They have 
allowed just recently HIV-infected individuals to enter the United 
States legally despite Congress' express intent that this not be done. 
Just recently they gave political asylum to a homosexual, setting a new 
policy for political asylees that if one is persecuted because of his 
or her sexual orientation, one can come to the United States under the 
protection of the United States for political asylum and all the 
benefits one receives for that. After 2 years into the Clinton 
administration, the Department of Justice has failed to even staff its 
top positions when the crime issue is at the top of the list of the 
concerns of the American public.
  Mr. Chairman, as of December 1993, Justice had a 36.7-percent vacancy 
rate in its Presidential appointee positions requiring confirmation. As 
of May of this year, that figure has increased to 37.9 percent. How can 
the President claim to be tough on crime while at the same time failing 
to even fill these key crime fighting positions?
  Mr. Chairman, I just think that my colleagues need to really look at 
this amendment. It is a serious amendment. This House needs to send a 
very serious message to this administration and particularly to the 
Department of Justice and Attorney General Janet Reno that it is time 
they got their act together and accurately represent what the American 
people support in the fight on crime. It is time that they stop setting 
social policy for this country using the Department of Justice.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 212, not voting 56, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 275]

                               AYES--171

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--212

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--56

     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Barton
     Bentley
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Crane
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dingell
     Engel
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Franks (CT)
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Grams
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Kasich
     Laughlin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Maloney
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Owens
     Porter
     Ridge
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Stokes
     Taylor (MS)
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Tucker
     Washington
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1002

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Taylor of Mississippi for, with Mr. Machtley against.
       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Ackerman against.
       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Hilliard against.
       Mr. Torkildsen for, with Mr. Tucker against.

  Mr. WILSON and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PACKARD, GALLO, HALL of Texas, INSLEE, TAUZIN, STENHOLM, and 
SARPALIUS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 275, 
I was unavoidably detained and unable to register my vote. Had I been 
present, I would have noted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained this morning and 
was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 275. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for expenses necessary to implement the 
     President's Immigration Initiative as authorized in H.R. 
     3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994, or similar legislation, $24,060,000, of which not to 
     exceed $6,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1996.


                      office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $30,500,000; including not to exceed 
     $10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
     character, to be expended under the direction of, and to be 
     accounted for solely under the certificate of, the Attorney 
     General; and for the acquisition, lease, maintenance and 
     operation of motor vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation: Provided, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $24,000 are permanently 
     canceled.


                       weed and seed program fund

       For necessary expenses, including salaries and related 
     expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to 
     implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, $13,150,000, 
     to remain available until expended for intergovernmental 
     agreements, including grants, cooperative agreements, and 
     contracts, with State and local law enforcement agencies 
     engaged in the investigation and prosecution of violent 
     crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and Seed'' designated 
     communities, and for either reimbursements or transfers to 
     appropriation accounts of the Department of Justice and other 
     Federal agencies which shall be specified by the Attorney 
     General to execute the ``Weed and Seed'' program strategy: 
     Provided, That funds designated by Congress through language 
     for other Department of Justice appropriation accounts for 
     ``Weed and Seed'' program activities shall be managed and 
     executed by the Inspector General through the Executive 
     Office for Weed and Seed: Provided further, That the Attorney 
     General may direct the use of other Department of Justice 
     funds and personnel in support of ``Weed and Seed'' program 
     activities only after the Attorney General notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act.


                          working capital fund

       Of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $387,000 are permanently canceled.

                    United States Parole Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized by law, $7,451,000.

                            Legal Activities


            salaries and expenses, general legal activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to 
     be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and 
     rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of 
     Columbia; $411,786,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     for litigation support contracts shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the funds available in this 
     appropriation, not to exceed $50,099,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for office automation systems for 
     the legal divisions covered by this appropriation, and for 
     the United States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, and 
     offices funded through ``Salaries and Expenses'', General 
     Administration: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall be available for the 
     United States National Central Bureau, INTERPOL, for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1342, the Attorney General may 
     accept on behalf of the United States and credit to this 
     appropriation, gifts of money, personal property and 
     services, for the purpose of hosting the International 
     Criminal Police Organization's (INTERPOL) American Regional 
     Conference in the United States during fiscal year 1995: 
     Provided further, That of the offsetting collections credited 
     to this account, $99,000 are permanently canceled.
       In addition, for expenses necessary to implement the 
     President's Immigration Initiative as authorized in H.R. 
     3355, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994, or similar legislation, $4,695,000, of which not to 
     exceed $1,250,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1996.
       In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to 
     exceed $2,500,000 to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund, as authorized by section 6601 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1989, as amended by Public 
     Law 101-509 (104 Stat. 1289).


                 civil liberties public education fund

       For research contracts and public education activities, and 
     to publish and distribute the hearings, findings, and 
     recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Re-location and 
     Internment of Civilians, pursuant to section 106(b) of the 
     Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-383), $5,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


               salaries and expenses, antitrust division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, $75,655,000; Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, not to exceed $35,460,000 of 
     offsetting collections derived from fees collected for 
     premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
     Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended, 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 1995, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1995 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $40,195,000: 
     Provided further, That any fees received in excess of 
     $35,460,000 in fiscal year 1995 shall remain available until 
     expended, but shall not be available for obligation until 
     October 1, 1995: Provided further, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $155,000 are 
     permanently canceled.


                    amendment offered by mr. schiff

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff: Page 12, line 6, strike 
     ``$75,655,000'' and insert ``$70,157,850''.
       Page 12, line 7, strike ``$40,195,000'' and insert 
     ``$34,697,850''.

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have a second amendment which deals with 
the very next paragraph of page 12. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment which I just offered and my second amendment be considered en 
bloc.


                             point of order

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against en bloc 
consideration of amendments on two different paragraphs in the bill, 
and I think the precedents of the House are clear on that matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman needs only to object to the unanimous 
consent request of the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has offered two amendments 
and asked unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. Unanimous 
consent is refused for that, and the gentleman may proceed with 
presenting his first amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I do intend to offer two amendments to this 
bill if the first amendment is passed. Therefore, I ask my colleagues 
to consider the two proposals for their final intent, which is to 
transfer $5.5 million, approximately, from the Antitrust Division of 
the Department of Justice to the U.S. attorneys in the Department of 
Justice. Mr. Chairman, I expect that the opposition to my proposal will 
turn out to be a defense of the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice. I want to make it clear that I understand the important work 
of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. In fact, it is 
currently headed by a very able antitrust attorney from New Mexico, 
Mrs. Ann Bingaman. If my two amendments are both adopted by the 
committee, the Antitrust Division will still receive an the bill a 5-
percent increase in funding over the appropriation for the last fiscal 
year. But I raise this amendment as a matter of comparative priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the appropriation committee under the 
gentleman from West Virginia and our ranking member from Kentucky have 
done an admirable job in attempting to set priorities in law 
enforcement, but I believe that there is one glaring example which must 
be addressed by these two amendments. The proposal in the bill is for 
the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to receive over a 
13-percent increase in funding over the last fiscal year. While the 
U.S. attorney, even with funds from the proposed crime trust fund added 
in are proposed to receive only a 1.6-percent increase, by moving $5.5 
million the Antitrust Division will still receive an increase of 5 
percent, and the U.S. attorneys will be moved up only to 2.3 percent. 
But I feel it is important to narrow the gap between the two divisions.
  Mr. Chairman, the emphasis by the President of the United States and 
by the Congress over and over again in talking about our fight against 
crime has been in the fight against violent crime, and it is the U.S. 
attorneys where the rubber meets the road in that fight. They are the 
front line prosecutors in prosecuting Federal violent crimes and other 
street kinds of offenses, along with other offenses. An article in USA 
Today just this week pointed out some problems in the U.S. attorney's 
office. Admittedly they have had increases in funding over the last 
number of years. But the number of cases has increased along with that 
increased funding, and they are still behind in many districts in 
prosecuting violent crimes, serious drug offenses and other serious 
crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, the House and Senate hope to enact a crime bill this 
year. I certainly hope that we can reach a conference report that will 
be adopted by both the House and by the other body. But in both 
proposals that now exist from the two bodies there are numerous 
increases in Federal offenses, including Federal death penalty 
offenses. Who will prosecute these new cases if they become law?
  I was a career prosecutor before coming to Congress. I was also a 
defense attorney for 2 years. I have to say that criminal prosecution 
remains one of the most labor intensive and nonautomated functions that 
we have.

                              {time}  1010

  No computer, no machine, can interview a witness or cross-examine a 
witness. No machine can question jurors. These have to be done by 
people. Positions for people have to be funded. And that is why I offer 
this amendment. If this amendment passes, I will offer the next 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I think it is particularly 
misdirected. I would like to point out to this body that, to begin 
with, our appropriation's bill increases funding for U.S. attorneys a 
total of $13.2 million. We think that all things considered, this 
increase gave the office a fair appropriation's level, particularly 
given our tight budget this year. We understand the important role that 
the U.S. attorneys play in crime fighting, but we have adequately 
funded them. We oppose the gentleman's amendment on that basis.
  I understand that the gentleman intends, if successful with this 
amendment, to shift money to the U.S. attorneys from another office, 
and I think the area where the gentleman is targeting the cut is 
particularly misdirected.
  I cannot think of an account in the bill, a crime fighting account or 
a law enforcement account, that would be a worse place to take money. 
The Antitrust Division in 1980 had 982 Antitrust Division personnel. By 
fiscal year 1989, that number was down by over half, to 509 personnel.
  In 1990, President Bush began initiating a gradual expansion of the 
Antitrust Division.
  The workload of this division has increased steadily over the past 
several years.
  For example, since 1992, bank merger proceedings have increased by 43 
percent; price fixing cases have increased by 46 percent; proposed 
merger transactions, Mr. Chairman, have increased by 275 percent; this 
is not an account that we can afford to cut.
  Not only have the number of cases gone up, but the complexity of 
those cases has increased significantly.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an excellent Assistant Attorney General of the 
Antitrust Division, Anne Bingaman. She has been particularly 
aggressive, and she is particularly capable. And if you have not had an 
opportunity to talk with her, my colleagues, about her plans and the 
way she is running this Division, I encourage you to do so. You will be 
impressed. She is a public servant who is doing an outstanding job.
  She is totally committed to the task of protecting competition, which 
is critical in our free market economy. It is something I think the 
gentleman offering the amendment is committed to. She is very 
aggressive in this regard. As well, she is aggressive with respect to 
the other side of her job, protecting the consumer. She has undertaken 
major initiatives, and she needs additional resources.
  In the past 10 months, in the areas of mergers, civil conduct, and 
international enforcement, she has made a very admirable record. She is 
seeking these additional resources to focus on critical industries such 
as telecommunications, as that industry matures and emerges. There is 
certainly a need for additional resources as they look at the 
complexities of antitrust questions there. Health care, banks, 
computers, software, financial markets--all of these are growing 
industries that need additional attention and additional resources. We 
are fortunate that she is putting together a marvelously capable 
organization to address these issues.
  In order to enhance merger enforcement, especially involving 
international corporations and unfair trade practices, this bill 
provides a net increase, Mr. Chairman, of $8.4 million, which expresses 
our confidence in Mrs. Bingaman and the job she needs to do.
  As part of this recommendation, with the support and encouragment of 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] and the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the bill recommends an increase in the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
premerger filing freeze from $25,000 to $45,000 dollars. My colleagues 
ought to understand that becuase of Chairman Brooks' support, we are 
able to increase the funding of the Antitrust Division by $8.4 million. 
And because we are raising an additional $14.8 million, we are able to 
reduce the overall Antitrust Division's appropriation, saving the 
Treasury $5.8 million compared to last year, and $1.4 million below the 
administration's request.
  So I will end where I began. I think that this is the exact wrong 
place to take funds. I would also offer that the committee, recognizing 
the vital role that its U.S. attorneys play, has been as generous as we 
could be with our increase, given that our 602B allocation was $1.1 
billion below the President's request. We increased the U.S. attorneys 
by a total of $13.2 million in the bill.
  I would hope that the body would vote this amendment down.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the proposal of the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. I strongly support the 
proposal. I do not know of another one of my colleagues who has a 
better sense of how to control crime and what the challenges of crime 
to the average American is than the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff]. The gentleman was a district attorney prior to being elected 
to Congress, he prosecuted many cases, and he understands the struggle 
that goes on at the local level in trying to protect our honest 
citizens. In fact, over the years I have served with the gentleman, he 
has demonstrated time and time again how he understands this issue, and 
I always looked to him, as do a number of my other colleagues, for 
guidance and advice when it comes to criminal justice matters.
  Today the gentleman again has demonstrated his wisdom and commitment 
to protecting the honest citizens of our country, which has to be a No. 
1 priority of Government, by suggesting that the priorities of the 
Department of Justice are a little out of whack. And he has suggested a 
tangible way of readjusting those priorities by shifting money from the 
Antitrust Division to the U.S. attorney's offices, which will permit 
funds to flow into those offices that are most closely involved with 
the battle against crime and those offices that are directly involved 
with protecting the well-being and the safety of our citizens across 
the United States.

  The fact that this administration has set up the priorities so that 
there is a bigger increase in the antitrust section than the U.S. 
attorney section suggests to me that this administration reflects what 
those of us who have been complaining about liberal Democrats for a 
long time have said, that they have got their priorities screwed up, 
when you have a situation where you are focusing on the businessman, 
rather than focusing on thugs and rapists and other people who are 
creating such havoc throughout our country.
  This is a decision between spending more money on regulation of 
business, as opposed to spending more money on controlling crime and 
the criminal element in America. I wholeheartedly support the proposal 
of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. I wholeheartedly support 
the priorities the gentleman would establish.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] to answer some of the suggestions we have had 
from the other side.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
both his remarks and support, and also for yielding.
  I want to say the factual statements made by the chairman, the 
gentleman from West Virginia, are, of course, true, but I think they 
have to be put in context. It is true that the number of antitrust 
cases and antitrust volume of work has increased for the Antitrust 
Division. But my amendments, if passed together, will still give the 
Antitrust Division a 5-percent increase in funding, which, I suspect, 
is above most divisions and agencies in our tight budget.
  It is also true that the committee recommends an increase for the 
U.S. attorneys, but that increase is 1.6 percent, and that is to take 
care of not only the increase in prosecutions for violent crimes and 
drug crimes under current laws, but to take care of new offenses we 
hope to enact this year.
  I guarantee, Mr. Chairman, that if we pass a crime bill with a 1.6-
percent increase only for the U.S. attorneys, the laws we pass will 
just sit on the books unenforced.

                              {time}  1020

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment. Bear in mind that the 
Antitrust Division is an integral part of Federal law enforcement. It 
must be adequately funded to effectively perform its mission, which is 
to protect our cherished economic system of vibrant competition and 
consumer choice. The antitrust laws have rightly been proclaimed the 
Magna Carta of American free enterprise.
  The policies of the two previous Republican administrations left a 
legacy of budgetary pressures throughout the Government, from which the 
Antitrust Division has never recovered. Its funding was cut by more 
than a third during those yars, and by 1992 its staffing was 38 percent 
below 1980.
  Meanwhile, funding for other programs increased. For example, funding 
for U.S. attorneys doubled during the Reagan years and increased 
another 70 percent during the Bush years. In 1992 staffing was a 
whopping 120 percent above 1980.
  Mr. Chairman, the Antitrust Division's increase results, not from 
cuts in other Federal programs, but from a new hike in the merger 
filing fee under Hart-Scott-Rodino. The Division's appropriations from 
the general treasury is actually being cut $5.8 million.
  Anne Bingaman, the head of the Antitrust Division, has invigorated 
and revitalized that Division after a sluggish period of enforcement. 
Under her leadership, the Division is zeroing in on foreign violators 
of U.S. antitrust laws, who have previously had carte blanche to rape 
the American economy. Taking this money from the Division now will stop 
in mid-stream this extremely critical effort to assure that foreign 
business complies with the same laws in this country as do our own 
businesses.
  I urge the House to oppose this effort to further cannibalize the 
Antitrust Division. Vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. FISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague from New Mexico knows 
the high respect in which I hold him, and particularly in the areas 
that concern or committee with respect to the criminal justice system.
  And certainly, staffing of the U.S. attorneys is a matter that should 
be periodically reviewed and, of course, it has been reviewed by the 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  My problem is that my colleague's amendment increases funding for the 
U.S. attorneys at the expense of the Antitrust Division.
  Now, colleagues, it is not as if the U.S. attorneys have been 
shortchanged over the years. The record shows very generous 
congressional treatment of the U.S. attorneys. And if my figures differ 
slightly from the chairman, it is simply because we are using different 
years.
  In 1980, a total of $156 million was paid out for U.S. attorneys, 
total staff of 3,906; 13 years later, by 1993, there had been a 230-
percent increase in funding in constant 1980 dollars and 131-percent 
increase in total staffing.
  The record shows exactly the opposite with respect to the Antitrust 
Division. Today the Division has 311 lawyers. In 1980, it had 456 
lawyers. And, my colleagues, at the peak of the Nixon administration, 
1972, there were more lawyers in the Antitrust Division than there are 
today. The total then was 325.
  No one here disputes that prosecution is central to law enforcement. 
It is also true that the Antitrust Division is crucial to our 
competitiveness. The Division protects competition in critical 
industries, reviews mergers and investigates allegations of 
anticompetitive conduct. It is also true that the Antitrust Division is 
responding to developments today that will require a very competent 
Division.
  They will have new responsibilities very soon when this body acts and 
passes telecommunications legislation reforming basically our entire 
system. We are also actively moving in the direction advocated by 
former Attorney General Barr, and that is antitrust violations 
overseas, a whole new area of enforcement for the Department.
  Mr. Chairman, I maintain that antitrust enforcement is good for the 
economy. And today, in a far more complex global economy, it is 
foolhardy not to have in place an Antitrust Division competent to 
respond.
  We are at the threshold, not just of an expanding economy but of new 
responsibilities for the Antitrust Division, and this would be just the 
very wrong time to be cutting back on the staffing and the funding of 
the Division.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in opposition to the Schiff 
amendment. I want to first of all congratulate the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia on, I think, his maiden voyage to the 
House as chairman of this appropriation subcommittee and wish him well 
and congratulate his ranking member for, I think, an excellent bill.
  I serve with my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico, on the 
Committee on the Judiciary. He is one of the valued members of my own 
particular subcommittee, the subcommittee I am privileged to chair, 
which deals with intellectual property and judicial administration. As 
such, one of our responsibilities is to oversee the operations of U.S. 
attorneys' offices and to authorize their budgets. And my colleague 
from New Mexico works very closely with us in attempting to address 
their issues.
  I do not disagree with the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] 
when he says that we need to be very vigilant in ensuring that U.S. 
attorneys have adequate resources. They have had. They have received, 
as my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], just 
indicated, very substantial increases.
  And it was merited, because we have given them a lot of additional 
responsibilities. I did not realize that my colleague from New Mexico 
had such great concerns about the inadequacies of the U.S. Attorney's 
Office. He certainly did not discuss it with me, and we have prime 
responsibilities as an authorizing committee for their work.
  I would also feel a little better if my friend, and he is my friend, 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], appeared before the Justice 
Appropriations Committees and testify to the inadequacies of that 
particular account. He did not, apparently. That is how we attempt to 
get more resources in the office of the U.S. attorney, is by appearing 
before those committees that appropriate those monies. And he did not 
do that.
  What he does do, however, is come to the floor of the House and try 
to shift moneys from the Antitrust Division at probably one of the 
worst times to do that. He knows that during the 1980's, the Antitrust 
Division was decimated. They went from 456 attorneys in 1980 down to, 
with this mark, with the present mark, we are going to be at a level of 
340. We are still below where we were in 1980, substantially below what 
we were previous to 1980, at a time in our history where we see a major 
restructuring of industries.

                              {time}  1030

  I see the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] on the floor.
  The telecommunications industry in undergoing a major transformation. 
We are seeing major changes in the manner in which our Bell operating 
companies are involved in all kinds of additional services, including 
the cable industry.
  Major realignments are taking place in the health care industry, 
where there are absolutely mind-boggling antitrust issues that we are 
going to have to address, and we are going to need the best of 
leadership that we can get out of the Antitrust Division.
  Ann Bingaman, I think even the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] 
concedes is probably one of the finest heads of that department we have 
seen in many, many years, and she is assembling a professional staff 
that is second to none. We saw so many mergers slip by in the 1980's, 
unfortunately, that did not receive review because we had an inadequate 
Antitrust Division.
  Mr. Chairman, historically Democrats and Republicans have taken the 
well of this floor to fight for more antitrust enforcement, because 
that is the Holy Grail, really, of our free enterprise system, 
competition. I realize there are a lot of big corporations and foreign 
corporations out there that do not want to see use rebuild this 
particular Antitrust Division because they know it spells disaster for 
them as they try to achieve an unlevel playing field. If we are going 
to do a better job in identifying foreign governments and foreign 
corporations that basically flout our antitrust laws, we are going to 
have to have a strong Antitrust Division.
  I say to my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], I 
understand why he wants to build up the U.S. Attorney's Office. I do, 
too. I do not want to see us basically lose ground there, but they have 
not lost ground.
  I am working with the gentleman in attempting to get the resources 
the U.S. Attorney's Office needs, but we cannot take it away from the 
Antitrust Division at this time in our history. I hope Members will 
defeat the Schiff amendment.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have to respond to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], with whom I have worked very closely on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and with whom I share a very high regard, 
that I did bring law enforcement to the attention of the appropriations 
subcommittee. I circulated a letter among my colleagues in which 35 
other Members of the House, both Democrats and Republicans, joined me 
in asking the appropriations subcommittee to keep law enforcement of 
violent crimes as the top priority. I have to assume that the gentleman 
from New Jersey's office for some reason did not receive my request for 
his signature on that letter.
  Mr. Chairman, second, I have to say, in deference to the 
subcommittee, to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and 
to the ranking member, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], very 
largely they did exactly that. There were initial proposals, for 
example, to reduce the staffing at the FBI and DEA, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, that the subcommittee reversed. I think they are to be 
commended strongly for that.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I still think this item is a glaring exception 
to establishing correct priorities. As I predicted at the beginning of 
the debate, Mr. Chairman, the basic opposition to my two amendments is 
a passionate defense of the Antitrust Division.
  I do not quarrel with that defense of the Antitrust Division. Indeed, 
if my amendment passes, or if my two amendments pass, I should say, Mr. 
Chairman, the Antitrust Division will still receive a 5 percent 
increase in funding over the last fiscal year. The U.S. attorney's 
increase will be less than 2.35 percent. That is with my transfer. 
Right now the proposal is more than 13 percent increase for the 
Antitrust Division, less than 2 percent for the U.S. Attorney's Office.
  Mr. Chairman, the percentage of increase, even if my amendments are 
adopted, will still give the Antitrust Division a significant increase 
over their funding over the current fiscal year. Here is the point, Mr. 
chairman. The point is the priorities. It is true that the Antitrust 
Division's work load has gone up. It is also true that the U.S. 
Attorney's Office's work load in violent crimes and serious drug 
offenses has gone up.
  Mr. Chairman, equally significant with that, we are poised to pass a 
new anticrime bill with a variety of new offenses: new death penalties, 
new life in prison without parole for career serious criminals. The 
U.S. Attorney's Office, and not the Antitrust Division, is responsible 
for enforcing those new laws, those new laws if they become enacted.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the priority as stated by the President of the 
United States. The President in public statements right here in this 
Chamber, Mr. Chairman, to a joint session of Congress, as well as 
numerous statements throughout the country, the President has said that 
our priority must be to combat violent criminals. The President has 
never, to the best of my knowledge, made any public statement that he 
is concerned about the effect of a smaller increase or the effect at 
all on the antitrust Division.
  In other words, Mr. Chairman, the President has never said that ``We 
are afraid of being mugged by a bunch of antitrust violators.'' 
Although I acknowledge the important contribution of the Antitrust 
Division, I think they should get an increase, but I think our first 
priority, as best we can, should be on the U.S. attorneys who will 
prosecute the violent criminals.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  (By unanimous consent and at the request of Mr. Hughes, Mr. Doolittle 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HUGHES. I say to my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico, 
that I appeared before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, 
and Judiciary to testify for additional resources for law enforcement. 
My colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], if he had 
some serious concerns about the U.S. attorney's office, could have 
joined me in my appearance before the Committee on Appropriations. That 
is how we get resources for additional law enforcement efforts.
  In this particular legislation, Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a 
little over $13 million additional dollars for U.S. attorneys. The 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is a member of the crime 
conference committee, as I am. I would be happy to work with the 
gentleman from New Mexico in attempting to get the additional 
resources, if we can identify them, for U.S. attorneys.
  That is how we get additional resources for U.S. attorneys. We do not 
take it away from an Antitrust Division that is already inadequate. A 
5-percent increase of a totally inadequate staff level is still very 
inadequate. We still are inadequate where we are with the monies, the 
increases, in this bill for antitrust. That is the point that I think 
most of us are trying to make on both sides of the aisle, the 
gentleman's side of the aisle and mine.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  I want to compliment the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. 
I think the leadership he has shown in putting in this additional money 
for the Antitrust Division is a historically correct decision. It 
reflects a consensus which we have developed in this country throughout 
this century, that vigorous competition in the marketplace is the 
ultimate protection of consumers.
  The gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman, I think reflects the 
views which the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] have already made quite correctly out 
here on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, spins in his 
grave as he hears this debate out here on the floor of Congress. Ann 
Bingaman, the Assistant Attorney General, is a direct lineal descendent 
of Teddy Roosevelt and his trust busters in the early part of this 
century.
  When commercial cartels are able to control a particular marketplace, 
it not only hurts the other competitors in that marketplace, but it 
ultimately hurts the consumer in the United States and our ability to 
be competitive in the global competitive marketplace.
  The increase in the budget which the gentleman from West Virginia is 
recommending out here on the floor today still does not restore the 
budget to where it was in the early 1970's, but nonetheless, it will 
augment the capacity of this Attorney General, of this Assistant 
Attorney General, Ann Bingaman, to fight the critical battles that will 
have to be fought in the 1990's.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to tell the Members that without a 
vigorous Antitrust Division, there would be no significant competition 
in the telecommunications marketplace today. Without the breakup of 
AT&T, without the dissolution of that monopoly, which had been 
constructed over a century, we would not be bringing out legislation 
this coming Tuesday with Bell South, with US West, with Southwestern 
Bell, Nynex, PacTel. We would not be bringing it out with MCI and 
Sprint. We would not be bringing it out with hundreds of competitors in 
this telecommunications industry which have all been spawned since the 
early 1980's as vigorous competitors to AT&T.

                              {time}  1040

  We would still have for all intents and purposes one wire in America 
controlled by one company and one vision of one set of executives. We 
would not have seen a radical decline in the cost of long distance 
service in this country. We would not have seen a marketplace now where 
seven other competitors in regions across this country from PacTel and 
Bell South to Nynex and Southwestern Bell, now all competing with 
different visions of where this country should go in communications, 
all possible because of the Antitrust Division.
  In cable, in long distance, in local, in information services and 
manufacturing, we are now seeing new competition emerge. At the same 
time we see new announcements: AT&T merging with McCaw British Telecom 
with MCI, Liberty Cable with TCI. We need an Antitrust Division that 
can keep pace with the ever-emerging challenges to this vigorous 
marketplace which we have created.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
question?
  Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does the gentleman sense an outcry among the 
population throughout the United States, a cry from the people for more 
antitrust a legislation and enforcement? Or does the gentleman instead 
hear a cry, a plea for help from our citizens that they are being 
victimized by violent criminals?
  Is that not what this debate is all about, is what priorities we 
have? Not eliminating the department the gentleman is talking about, 
not eliminating antitrust. My friend, the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Schiff], has no complaint about antitrust enforcement at all. He 
is just saying that the priorities are different.
  Does the gentleman sense the American people do not want a priority 
on violent crime?
  Mr. MARKEY. I will reclaim my time, and I will make this point as 
strongly as I can. The gentleman is setting up a Hobson's choice which 
the American people do not want to have to make and should not have to 
make. That is, that they should have very strong antitrust enforcement 
against monopolists who ratchet up prices, tip consumers upside down, 
shake dollars out of their pockets and do not give them the proper 
choices which they need, at the same time ensure that violent criminals 
are put behind bars.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. MARKEY. It is that kind of false choice that masks what is really 
behind us. The real agenda here is to ensure that monopolists are able 
to re-create the kind of economic cartels which for this century have 
been the primary target of the antitrust division of the Justice 
Department. Those are the primary enemies of every consumer in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I just mentioned the telecommunications industry here, 
but we could go on down the long litany of industries in this country, 
all of whom have an eagle eye on that Antitrust Division of the Justice 
Department at all times. Ultimately consumerism in this country is the 
byproduct of vigorous competition in the marketplace. If the gentleman 
for a minute thinks that the hundreds of thousands of companies, small, 
across this country that serve as the lifeblood and the creation of new 
jobs in this country could exist without a very strong antitrust 
division, then he misunderstands the American economy. If he thinks the 
consumers will have lower prices and better quality if the Antitrust 
Division is less vigorous, he misunderstrands the American economy. If 
he thinks that we should hand over to a small group of industry giants 
the economic agenda of this country, then he can side with the big 
business, but the small business agenda of this country, the 80 percent 
of the companies in this country that create 90 percent of the new jobs 
and force down prices and increase quality, then he should vote against 
this amendment. That is what this is all about. It is all about whether 
we want more economic concentration or we want more vigorous 
competition out in the marketplace to benefit the consumer.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HUGHES. I do not think our colleague, the gentleman from 
California, wants to align himself with the major monopolists of this 
world, but let us get it back on track again, also.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Hughes and by unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
Members on the other side keep referring to muggers and rapists. We are 
talking about U.S. attorneys. They do a very, very important job. We 
work with them very closely. But they do not prosecute muggers and 
rapists. Ninety-five percent plus of the street crime is prosecuted by 
State and local government, not by U.S. attorneys. So, come on. Let us 
be honest about it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim the balance of my time.
  Oppose this amendment. Small business want a no vote. A competitive 
marketplace wants a ``no'' vote. The consumers of America want a no 
vote on the Schiff amendment. It is the only way that we can be sure 
that we are going to guarantee a competitive marketplace.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Schiff and by unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is still a debate about priorities. The more we 
increase the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, the more 
antitrust legal work that will be done. The more we increase the U.S. 
attorneys, the more violent crimes that will be prosecuted. It is true 
that the majority of violent crimes are still prosecuted by local 
prosecutors. Nevertheless, the U.S. attorneys enforce all Federal 
crimes involving a firearm. They even enforce Federal gun control laws. 
Further, the U.S. attorneys enforce Federal crimes against serious 
narcotics traffickers. What this is about is a choice between where we 
should place our priorities. It is not a matter of criticizing the 
antitrust division or any other portion of the Department of Justice. I 
am proposing an amendment that will change the priorities to say that 
instead of the antitrust division getting a 13-percent increase, they 
will get a 5-percent increase. Instead, they will be up to a 2.3-
percent increase.
  Mr. Chairman, with the existing laws we have on the books and with 
the increased violent crime measures we have already voted in this 
House to pass, somebody has to enforce those laws.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, the one mugging that 80 percent of most Americans have 
to worry about occurring in their lives over the next year is when 
monopolistic corporations tip them upside down and try to shake dollars 
out of their pockets. As they sit home in their suburban homes, their 
threat is less from a mugger than it is from a corporate cartel intent 
on overcharging them or breaking up some small company that they work 
in.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a balance we are talking about here. We are 
having the largest increase in funding for fighting violent crime in 
the history of this country, but we should also ensure that we have 
proper protection for consumers in this country at the same time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if I can muster enough voice today, I want to rise as a 
conservative Democrat in opposition to this amendment.
  If there are two enemies to the free enterprise system in America, 
the first is overzealous government regulation, but the second is 
monopolistic dominant market practices by dominant players and 
monopolies in our country. If we are to avoid a condition on this House 
floor where Members seek to re-regulate industries in this country that 
we have fought desperately to return to the free market system, if we 
are to avoid overzealous government regulation of industry and business 
in our country, we most certainly need a watchdog agency at the 
Department of Justice ensuring that monopolistic, predatory practices 
by dominant monopoly players in our society are not allowed to stand.
  Just last year in this Congress we debated a historic bill that re-
regulated the cable industry. We should not have had to do that. We 
should not have had to come on this House floor and ask for new 
regulations on an industry as important as the cable industry. We had 
to do it because over the last 10 years, the Justice Department failed 
in its duty to this country to protect us from monopolistic practices. 
It was the lack of competition, the failure of the Justice Department 
to vigorously engage the vertically integrated monopolists in the cable 
industry who forced us to come to the floor and ask for a re-regulation 
of the cable industry.
  Mr. Chairman, if my conservative brethren on the other side really 
want to avoid those instances where the Congress must come forward and 
re-regulate, reinvigorate the regulators in American government 
agencies, then I suggest we ought to support a reinstitution of support 
to the antitrust division of the Justice Department and we ought to 
insist that it does its job. If Members are a defender of free 
enterprise, if Members believe in it as heartily as I know they do on 
the other side, I ask them to join with us in opposition to this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1050

  If you want to support more support for the Criminal Justice Division 
of the Justice Department, we will join you in that effort. But I 
suggest you find another place to find the funds.
  If ever the free enterprise system was threatened in America, it is 
threatened in America today as much from monopolist vertically 
integrated companies as it is from government regulation. I suggest to 
you that unless we pay close attention, unless we invigorate the 
Justice Department's attention to the efforts to prevent monopolies 
from developing in our society, all we will be left with is more and 
more efforts on the floor of this House to reregulate, in fact, to 
stick more regulations on business than they currently are burdened 
with and than they currently must comply with.
  I suggest to my friend, come with an amendment to help us support 
more money for the Justice Department at the criminal law level, and we 
will help you with that. But do not take it out of this Department. 
This Department, as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has 
stated on this House floor, has suffered too many cuts over the last 10 
years.
  This effort today is a small effort at restoring the capability by 
the Justice Department protection of the free market system by 
prevention of monopolistic dominant predatory practices of vertically 
integrated companies who should not be preying on smaller companies who 
are trying to give us competition, trying to give consumers choice in 
the marketplace.
  I urge you, please, to defeat this amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman suggest that when we have this 
era when we have limited resources and where we spend those resources 
definitely indicates our priorities, then you would suggest then if we 
do have limited resources that the priorities should not be on violent 
crime but instead should be on this regulatory function?
  My friend, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] was a district 
attorney, fought crime locally, and pointed out that the only way the 
Federal Government does fight violent crime is through the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, and pointed out how it does that, that you think 
that now with these limited resources that we have that our priorities 
should be set on the regulatory task of Government rather than violent 
crime?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman will agree with my 
friend that high priority in the allocation of Federal funds ought to 
go to fighting crime. I and other conservative Democrats would join you 
in that effort.
  What we are suggesting to you is that over the period of the last 10 
years, which has seen more consolidation of businesses, more vertically 
integrated businesses the introduction of foreign businesses into the 
American economy at ever and ever greatly increasing rates, the 
gentleman suggests that the emphasis must be placed at the antitrust 
division as well to protect the consumers and free market system.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Mollohan and by unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin 
was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that there have been 
created an illusion that this bill does not apply Federal resources to 
fight violent crime, I want to clear that up.
  This bill provides $2.4 billion of Federal funds, the lion's share of 
which goes to reinforce the front lines in the fight against crime. 
This bill funds 39,000 community policy officers and we increase the 
Border Patrol by over a thousands. This bill provides significant 
Federal funding to fight violent crime.
  I would not want the impression lingering here that it does not.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I would use the entire 5 minutes, but 
I know that the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] would like to 
make a final comment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from new Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I will be very brief and not use the whole 5 minutes.
  This debate comes down still to a matter of priorities.
  The President of the United States across the country said our major 
enemy is violent criminals. The President has not told the American 
people that our major opponent is antitrust violators, although I 
certainly agree that they should receive priority in prosecution and 
investigation.
  My amendments would still leave them doing so. I am convinced, 
however, that if we keep up with the current increases in cases in 
violent crime and in addition to that pass new Federal laws making new 
Federal violent crimes, new Federal death penalties, and combine that 
with a 1.6-percent increase to the U.S. attorneys, which is where all 
of these cases go; every single case in Federal court in the street 
crime area basically goes to the U.S. Attorney's Office, if their 
offices cannot handle it, everything we are talking about with respect 
to a crime bill, everything the President is talking about with respect 
to a crime bill simply will not happen.
  Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments 
and would just say that I think that he has touched on a very important 
point, one that I have expressed a lot of concern with both in our 
Committee on Appropriations, in the hearings we have had, as well as in 
the authorizing legislation, and that is our tendency to federalize so 
many crimes.
  I disagree with that, but as long as we are doing that, we have to 
have the resources to prosecute these crimes that we are federalizing.
  In one area that I am very aware of, both the health care fraud as 
well as the rising violent crimes on Indian reservations, 100 percent 
of which are prosecuted by Federal U.S. attorneys, we have severe 
problems, I know, in my own State and the inadequacy of the U.S. 
attorneys.
  It is, as the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] said, a matter 
of priorities, and in this case, I think our priority really needs to 
be in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and I think there is merit to the 
proposal that he has made here.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], and I would make 2 points.
  First, he is being modest in what he is proposing here. Even if the 
Schiff amendment passes, we are still giving a rate of increase to 
antitrust enforcement that is double the rate of increase that we would 
be giving to those who are actually fighting violent crime. Frankly, I 
think that this approach is overmodest.
  I would like just to put real emphasis on fighting crime. But what is 
being proposed as things now stand is that fighting violent crime will 
be increased less than 2 percent, less than 2 percent, and 13 percent, 
13 percent, increase will go to the antitrust division.
  Now, there is a big distinction between fighting antitrust violations 
and prosecuting violent felons. If the Justice Department does not 
bring a marginal antitrust case, there is a private civil right of 
action that private parties can bring to do exactly the same thing. 
Computer companies are perfectly free to sue each other, and they often 
do.
  But the individual citizens rely upon the government to protect and 
defend them against violent crime and self-help, at least technically, 
is illegal. It is ironic that private security is one of the fastest 
growing industries in America right now, because people simply cannot 
count upon the government to protect them against crime.
  It is ironic even in an election year when people are talking about 
our commitment to fighting crime that we put so many billions of 
dollars for welfare programs in the crime bill, and here where we have 
a chance to funds the U.S. attorneys who are on the front line of 
fighting violent crime, we short-change them.
  I was reading with dismay in the newspaper the other day, when I saw 
the Justice Department has accepted a referral to investigate whether 
the Catholic Church is not perhaps violating the antitrust laws in its 
pricing of catechisms. Now, perhaps there is a fine lawyers' argument 
here. But quite frankly this is not what the American people are 
demanding their tax dollars be used for. They want what the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] wants, and that is a tough law enforcement 
program.
  One of the reasons that everybody is watching with fascination, 
grisly though it is, the O.J. proceedings is that they are no longer 
certain after having seen what happened in, for instance, the Menendez 
brothers' trial, that our system is capable of apprehending and 
prosecuting and convicting violent felons and making those convictions 
stick and seeing the sentences executed.
  We have got to get serious about crime, and a vote against the Schiff 
amendment will show that this Congress simply is not serious.
  I congratulate my colleague.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note that again 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has made it clear that he is 
a strong supporter of the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice.
  I would like to just note for the sake of discussion today that in a 
global economy when we have more and more foreign competition coming 
into our country, there is more and more competition; our friends on 
the other side of the aisle would have us believe that corporations are 
holding us up and shaking money out of the pockets of consumers. The 
consumers I know are less afraid of that then they are afraid of 
walking down the street going into the store in the first place because 
they are being mugged, they are being raped, and they are being 
murdered. We heard earlier about Teddy Roosevelt turning over in his 
grave if he heard this discussion.
  The only people turning in their graves today are the victims of 
violent criminals who are victimizing the people of this country. We 
have got to set priorities at this time with limited resources. Mr. 
Schiff is in a very reasonable way suggesting that, yes, let us 
increase our enforcement of the antitrust laws but at the very least we 
should also make sure the U.S. attorneys who are involved in combating 
violent crime have a commensurate increase, an increase that suggests 
we have a priority here and we understand the pleas of our constituents 
who are saying, ``Do something about violent crime,'' and are less 
concerned about perhaps when they get to the marketplace being shaken 
down as the fact that they are not even safe on the way to the market 
in the first place.
  Mr. COX. I thank the gentleman from California.
  I would just summarize by saying that what is at stake in the Schiff 
amendment is noting more or less than $5.5 million. The question is can 
we take $5.5 million from the largesse that is being extended to 
antitrust in a 13-percent increase and give it to fighting violent 
crime so we can at least have a 2.3-percent increase in fighting crime.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief and make just 
three points.
  First, in a comparison of constant 1980 dollars: between 1980 and 
1993, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice had their 
budget cut by 28 percent and expense of a staff cut of 40 percent. On 
the other hand, in the U.S. attorney's office during the same period, 
1980 through 1993, they benefited from a 230-percent increase in budget 
and a 137-percent increase in staff.
  The second point I wish to make is that the Associate Attorney 
General for the Antitrust Division is Anne Bingaman, a New Mexican. If 
you read the major publications and you talk to attorneys, Members of 
Congress, and others who have dealt with Anne Bingaman and her 
Antitrust Division, you would see that she is doing an outstanding job, 
that she is fair, that she is hard-working, that she is honest, that 
she reaches out to Republicans and Democrats, and that her Antitrust 
Division has made a major difference already.
  Mr. Mollohan has already made many tough cuts, but we must keep these 
appropriations numbers for the Antitrust Division in order for Anne 
Bingaman to effectively do her job in the areas of merger enforcement, 
continuing investigations of international firms, continuing a program 
of providing guidance to health care, telecommunications, intellectual 
property, defense and other major industries and insure that we have a 
strategy on national and international criminal price fixing.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], is offering this amendment; he is an outstanding 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary and has a great deal of law 
enforcement background. I have supported him on many initiatives, but 
regrettably, on this one I think it makes sense to stay with the 
chairman's mark. In so doing the House of Representatives will send a 
strong message that it agrees with the work of Anne Bingaman, the 
Associate Attorney General, who as I mentioned, is doing an outstanding 
job.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following articles.

                [From The New York Times, May 27, 1994]

United States Sues British in Antitrust Case: A Settlement Is Reached--
                        Strategy for Japan Seen

                          (By Keith Bradsher)

       Washington, May 26.--Signaling a new tactic in the Clinton 
     Administration's trade policy, the Justice Department won a 
     settlement today from a British company that keeps the 
     company from preventing American competitors' doing business 
     overseas.
       The antitrust suit against Pilkington P.L.C., the world's 
     largest maker of flat glass, accused the British company of 
     monopolizing the technology for making sheets of glass like 
     those used in windowpanes or car windshields. The Justice 
     Department argued that Pilkington fell under American legal 
     jurisdiction because it owns 80 percent of an American 
     glassmaker, the Libby-Owens-Ford Company.
       The case had little to do with the glass market in the 
     United States; instead it sought to insure that American 
     companies could freely operate abroad.
       Justice Department officials would not say whether they 
     planned such antitrust cases against Japanese companies, in 
     connection with the Clinton Administration's effort to open 
     Japanese markets to American business. But they did say that 
     other investigations of foreign companies were under way.
       ``As we received information of a similar nature, we will 
     aggressively pursue it,'' said Robert Litan, a Deputy 
     Assistant Attorney General in the antitrust division.
       The Japanese Embassy here quickly denounced the new tactic 
     as a violation of international law.
       ``We have expressed our concern over the change because it 
     constitutes the exercise of extraterritoriality, which is a 
     violation of international law,'' said Seilchi Kondo, the 
     embassy's press secretary. ``Today's action will raise 
     further concern over this among all the United States' 
     trading partners.''
       The British reaction was restrained. ``We've noted the 
     settlement, but it's really a matter for the Department of 
     Justice and Pilkington,'' a British diplomat said today.
       The settlement with Pilkington, which was filed by the 
     Justice Department simultaneously with the lawsuit late 
     Wednesday, ``is the first under a 1992 policy change that 
     permits the department to challenge foreign business conduct 
     the harms U.S. export trade,'' Attorney General Janet Reno 
     said.
       That change was made by the Bush Administration, which 
     reversed a four-year Justice Department policy of avoiding 
     such cases. But the Bush Justice Department never filed any 
     cases, although it did start the investigation into 
     Pilkington.
       The department has seldom interpreted American antitrust 
     law so broadly, partly because of objections from the State 
     Department that such cases would hurt relations with allies.
       Pilkington in the late 1950's developed and patented its 
     technology for producing flat glass and required licenses for 
     the right to use the technology. It limited the licensees to 
     a certain geographical area in their home countries.
       Although many of Pilkington's patents have expired, the 
     company has continued to require the licenses, contending 
     that its production processes are protected by law as trade 
     secrets. Virtually all of the world's glass factories operate 
     under Pilkington licenses, including plants in Russia and 
     China.
       In announcing the settlement today, Ms. Reno said 
     Pilkington had agreed that much of its technology is in the 
     public domain.
       Fines Not Involved
       No financial penalties were imposed and Pilkington denied 
     any wrongdoing.
       But the settlement requires the company to drop its rule 
     that American concerns cannot build factories outside the 
     territories in the United States assigned in their licenses, 
     and to State that some of Pilkington's technology is now 
     publicly available.
       One of Pilkington's eight American licensees, the Guardian 
     Industries Corporation, won the right in a lawsuit eight 
     years ago to several territories in Asia and Eastern Europe. 
     But the seven other companies have been barred until now from 
     going abroad, said K. Craig Wildfang, the Justice Department 
     lawyer who filed the case.
       Settlements without monetary damages are not unusual. The 
     Justice Department broke up the old Bell System a decade ago 
     that way.
       But today's action is significant because of the American 
     assertion of legal jurisdiction over how business is done in 
     the rest of the world.
       Ms. Reno said Pilkington fell under American legal 
     jurisdiction because of its 80 percent ownership of Libbey-
     Owens-Ford, which is the second-largest American flat-glass 
     maker. Mr. Wildfang said that even if Pilkington had not 
     owned Libbey-Owens-Ford, the Justice Department would still 
     have had jurisdiction through another subsidiary, Pilkington 
     Holdings Inc., in Toledo, Ohio.
       The case was filed in Tucson, Ariz., because the court 
     there had already ruled in other cases that Pilkington P.L.C. 
     was legally the same as Libbey-Owens-Ford and Pilkington 
     Holdings, Mr. Wildfang said.
       The settlement reaches requires court approval.
       It is virtually impossible for a international company to 
     do business in the United States without setting up 
     operations here, and the Justice Department is now asserting 
     jurisdiction over the parent company through such 
     subsidiaries.
       Japanese officials have objected to this since the Bush 
     Administration began considering such a move two years ago, 
     Mr. Kondo of the Japanese Embassy said.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, June 16, 1994]

 MCI's Alliance With British Telecom Clears Hurdle; Sprint Deal Faces 
                                 Fight

 (By Wall Street Journal reporters Mary Lu Carnecale in Washington and 
                      Richard L. Hudson in London)

       After a year of U.S.-British skirmishing, the Justice 
     Department cleared the proposed alliance of MCI 
     Communications Corp. and British Telecommunications PLC, but 
     signaled that Sprint Corp.'s newly announced transatlantic 
     deal faces tough sledding.
       The Justice Department's action--which came in the form of 
     an antitrust lawsuit and a proposed consent decree that 
     requires approval of a federal district court in Washington--
     paves the way for BT to make a $4.3 billion investment for a 
     20% stake in MCI later this year. The companies also will 
     jointly operate a venture named Concert to provide 
     telecommunications services to international companies.
       The lawsuit, which named only Washington-based MCI and the 
     joint venture, charged that the alliance could give BT an 
     incentive to favor MCI over its U.S. rivals with better or 
     cheaper connections to BT's network. While BT faces some 
     competition in the United Kingdom, rivals generally don't 
     have another network they can use to complete calls.
       The proposed settlement aims to prevent BT from 
     discriminating against other U.S. long-distance carriers. To 
     that end, MCI and Concert promised to disclose to the Justice 
     Department rates and other details of agreements to hook up 
     to the BT network; the department can share the data with 
     other U.S. carriers, which would face limits in making the 
     data public.


                         State-Owned Monopolies

       In announcing the action, the Justice Department signaled 
     possible difficulties for Sprint as it tries to forge an 
     alliance with France Telecom and Deutsche Bundespost Telekom; 
     the two state-owned monopolies plan to invest $4 billion for 
     a 20% stake in Sprint, based in Westwood, Kan.
       In a news release, Anne Bingsman, assistant attorney 
     general in charge of the antitrust division, said that ``in 
     the increasingly global economy, vigorous antitrust 
     enforcement is critical to guaranteeing U.S. consumers the 
     benefits of competition in international markets.'' She 
     called the proposed decree ``an example of how U.S. antitrust 
     laws can be used to help protect U.S. competition from 
     mergers that threaten the misuse of foreign monopoly power.''
       Steven Sunshine, deputy assistant attorney general, 
     declined to comment on other proposed alliances, including 
     the Sprint plan. But he said that ``part of the reason why we 
     think this decree works is that the U.K. has a fairly open 
     telecommunications market and has a regulatory regime in 
     place that believes in equal access,'' meaning that all 
     telephone companies could connect with the BT network on 
     equal terms and conditions. Without that degree of openness, 
     he said, ``we very well may have reached a different 
     conclusion.''


                         greater access in u.k.

       Unlike in Britain, where BT's monopoly was abolished in 
     1984, in France and Germany basic voice telephone service 
     will remain a legal monopoly of the state phone companies 
     until 1998.
       In April, U.K. regulators helped push the BT-MCI plan 
     toward approval by providing greater access by U.S. phone 
     companies to the U.K. market. While declining to comment on 
     the government-to-government discussions, BT Chief Executive 
     Michael Hepher in an interview expressed ``a sense of relief 
     that we finally got over the last big hurdle'' to starting 
     the venture.
       Gerald Taylor, president and chief operating officer of MCI 
     Telecommunications Corp., a unit of MCI, said the Justice 
     Department requirements ``didn't change the deal at all,'' 
     and that MCI and BT spent much of the past year ironing out a 
     definitive agreement and legal issues.
       Concert, which will be 75%-owned by BT and 25%-owned by 
     MCI, opens with 700 to 800 employees and will receive 
     investment of about $1 billion over ``the next few years'' 
     from its two parents, Mr. Hepher said. ``The biggest single 
     component'' of the $1 billion will go toward buying telephone 
     exchanges, and installing and leasing long-distance lines for 
     its international customers, he said.
       Counting just the equipment and customers BT is 
     contributing to the venture, Concert today claims 4,600 
     ``access points'' in about 30 countries for clients to plug 
     into the BT-MCI's network. The venture is developing 
     standardized software and product portfolios to promise 
     customers--more than half of which are based in the U.S. or 
     U.K.--uniform services for voice and data communications 
     around the globe.
       The BT-MCI alliance is one of four major phone-company 
     partnerships girding for a global battle over the 
     communications budgets of the world's international 
     corporations. In addition to the Sprint plan announced on 
     Tuesday, AT&T Corp. of New York leads another alliance, and 
     the Swiss, Swedish and Dutch phone companies have also formed 
     a venture.
       Despite the restrictions, AT&T complained that the proposed 
     decree fails to protect MCI's rivals. Among other things, 
     AT&T said that ``U.S. carriers can never have a level playing 
     field to compete in the U.K. without the ability to own 
     international facilities.''
       AT&T is certain to press its points as the transaction goes 
     through final clearances. Approval still is needed from the 
     Federal Communications Commission and the European Union 
     Commission--though Mr. Hepher described those as unlikely to 
     be ``particularly troublesome'' following the Justice 
     Department's action. The BT executive said he expects his 
     company to buy the 20% MCI stake in about 10 weeks, and for 
     MCI to join Concert. In the meantime, he said, Concert will 
     operate as a wholly owned unit of BT, which today began a 
     global ad campaign promoting the Concert brand.
       Despite all the publicity, analysts say, the venture isn't 
     likely to produce much profit for BT or MCI for several 
     years. ``The jury will remain out'' on the venture's value 
     for some years, said Evan Miller, an analyst with Lehman 
     Brothers in London. ``They're thinking along the lines of 
     five to 10 years'' before a big impact on profit appears, he 
     said.
       BT's Mr. Hepher declined to forecast revenue or profit, but 
     said generally that ``multinational telecommunications are 
     growing at a very rapid rate, and the total revenues that are 
     flowing in are in the many billions. We're playing this game 
     for some serious money.''
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 1994]

 Six Big Airlines Settle U.S. Suit on Price Fixing--Scheme Using Data 
           System May Have Cost Public $2 Billion in 4 Years

                           (By Joe Davidson)

       Washington.--Six major airlines settled federal charges 
     that they fixed prices in a scheme that may have cost 
     consumers nearly $2 billion between 1988 and 1992.
       Under a consent decree filed in U.S. District Court here, 
     the airlines agreed that they won't use Airline Tariff 
     Publishing Co., an Industry-owned computerized fare-
     information system, to negotiate fare changes. The Justice 
     Department charged that the airlines had used coded messages 
     showing prospective price changes as a way of communicating 
     with each other about fares.
       The airlines actually stopped the practice when the suit 
     was filed more than a year ago. But yesterday's agreement, 
     which still must be approved by the court after a 60-day 
     comment period, would prevent them from resuming it.
       Anna Bingaman, assistant attorney general for antitrust, 
     called the case a ``critically important victory for American 
     consumers and American business.'' She said, ``The airlines 
     used the ATP fare-dissemination system to carry on 
     conversations just as direct and detailed as those 
     traditionally conducted by conspirators over the telephone or 
     in hotel rooms. Although their method was novel, their 
     conduct amounted to price fixing, plain and simple.''
       J. Mark Gidley, a former Bush administration antitrust 
     official who worked on the suit, said the case takes 
     antitrust probes into the high-tech era by establishing that 
     price-fixing agreements can be made using computers.
       Airlines agreeing to the consent decree include Alaska Air 
     Group Inc.'s Alaska Airlines, AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, 
     Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines and 
     Trans World Airlines. Airline Tariff Publishing also was part 
     of the accord. The settlement is substantially the same as 
     one reached with United Air Lines and USAir in December 1982 
     following a three-year Justice Department investigation.


                           no refunds in pact

       Ms. Bingaman said yesterday's agreement provides for no 
     refunds because the department isn't empowered to seek them. 
     She said the administration is considering asking Congress 
     for such authority in future cases.
       The airlines didn't shield their bitterness at what they 
     thought was a baseless attack. They said they settled to 
     avoid the cost of litigation.
       ``We continue to believe that the pricing practices in 
     question benefited the traveling public and were consistent 
     with both the law and practice in many industries,'' American 
     Airlines said Delta Air Lines said the Justice Department 
     ``presented no evidence the industry's practices were illegal 
     or added costs to ticket prices paid by consumers. It should 
     be evident to anyone that the airlines are fiercely 
     competitive in the pricing of their product.''
       Airlines have already shown that they can raise fares 
     without the benefit of electronic signals. Ticket prices have 
     gone up at least a half-dozen times since airlines stopped 
     the signals. Instead, a carrier will raise fares on weekends, 
     when few tickets are sold. If rivals don't match the 
     increase, the carrier withdraws the fare hike on Monday. If 
     everyone agrees, the increase sticks. The process may not be 
     as smooth as electronic signals, but the effect is the same.


                      fifty agreements identified

       Ms. Bingaman said the department identified over 50 
     separate price-fixing agreements by the airlines. In one 
     case, consumers paid $138 more for one-way travel between 
     Chicago and Dallas because of the agreement. If coordination 
     raised fares 5%-8% on an average ticket--the harm to 
     consumers would have amounted to $1.9 billion, the department 
     said.
       Last year, nine major airlines settled a lawsuit that made 
     essentially the same price-fixing allegations as the suit 
     brought by the Justice Department. The airlines denied 
     wrongdoing in the civil case, but issued $396 million in 
     ticket coupons, plus $14.4 million in cash for lawyer fees.
       After the government's suit was filed, representatives of 
     travel agents and consumer groups were critical of the 
     department's actions against the airlines, saying consumers 
     could be denied information about when ticket prices would 
     increase. But Ms. Bingaman said the information, more often 
     than not, was bogus. It really was intended just to negotiate 
     prices, she said, noting that more than 50% of the time, 
     prices ended up being different than what was quoted.
       (James Hirsch in Houston contributed to this article.)
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 241, not voting 38, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 276]

                               AYES--160

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--241

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Ackerman
     Bentley
     Berman
     Boucher
     Calvert
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Dingell
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (MI)
     Franks (CT)
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Grams
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Stokes
     Taylor (MS)
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Washington
     Waxman
     Wheat

                              {time}  1125

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Calvert for, with Mr. McCollum against.
       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Ackerman against.
       Mr. Lewis of Florida for, with Mr. Berman against.
       Mr. Schaefer for, with Miss Collins of Michigan against.
       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Hilliard against.
       Mr. Taylor of Mississippi for, with Mr. Lipinski against.

  Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY and Mr. VENTO changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. BOEHLERT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore. (Mr. 
Richardson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Brown of California, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4603) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies programs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1995, and making supplemental appropriations 
for these departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1994, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________