[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 83 (Monday, June 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 27, 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. Madam 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 those departments and 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other 
purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1748


                     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. Brown of California in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] had 
been disposed of.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme 
     Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and 
     grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance and 
     operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to 
     exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate 
     Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice 
     may approve, $24,157,000.


                    care of the building and grounds

       For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the 
     Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon 
     him by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-13b), 
     $3,000,000, of which $260,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

         United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers 
     and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as 
     authorized by law, $13,438,000.

               United States Court of International Trade


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries 
     of the officers and employees of the court, services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and necessary expenses of the 
     court, as authorized by law, $11,685,000.

     Court of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services


                         salaries and expenses

       For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including 
     judges of the territorial courts of the United States), 
     justices and judges retired from office or from regular 
     active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other 
     officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise 
     specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the 
     courts, as authorized by law, $2,330,147,000 (including the 
     purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed 
     $14,454,000 shall remain available until expended for space 
     alteration projects; of which not to exceed $11,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for furniture and furnishings 
     related to new space alteration for furniture and 
     construction projects, and of which $500,000 is to remain 
     available until expended for acquisition of books, 
     periodicals, and newspapers, and all other legal reference 
     materials, including subscriptions.

                              {time}  1750


                   amendment offered by mr. visclosky

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Visclosky: On page 57, line 23, 
     strike $2,330,147,000 and insert in lieu thereof 
     $2,323,455,000.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment along 
with my colleague from Florida, Mr. Young. However, before I explain my 
amendment, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Mollohan 
and Mr. Rogers for the contributions they have made to this effort. 
This bill, among other things, recognizes that the Federal judiciary 
must begin to participate as an equal branch of the Federal Government 
in our collective efforts to control Federal spending. I commend the 
gentlemen for their attention to this issue.
  As you know, last year, in an effort to reduce spending, President 
Clinton pledged to reduce the size of the Federal Government. While 
substantial progress in being made to reduce the size of the executive 
and legislative branches of Government, little attention has been 
focused on the third branch of our Government, the judiciary. Between 
fiscal years 1984 and 1993, staffing within the judiciary increased 
from 17,271 to 27,887 positions--a 62-percent increase.
  The executive and legislative branches of our Government are in the 
process of work force downsizing. These personnel cuts are painful, but 
reflect the fiscal realities the Federal Government faces. To date, the 
judicial branch of our Government has managed to avoid having to make 
the tough choices being made in other branches. I recognize that the 
judiciary faces an increasing workload, but so do the other branches of 
Government. Like Government everywhere, the judiciary employs 
administrative and support staff. Instead of requesting increases in 
the size of the Federal judiciary in the form of more administrative 
staff, the judiciary should be following the example of the other 
branches of Government by making judicious reductions.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple one. It reduces by 1 percent 
the judiciary account for district clerks of court. The amendment would 
make a small deduction from the account for clerks, a total of $6.962 
million. This would eliminate approximately 45 full-time equivalent 
[FTE] employees out of a staff of approximately 4,500.
  We are reducing the clerks of the U.S. District Courts by 1 percent 
because overall workload statistics for U.S. District Courts reveal 
that the number of case filings has remained relatively stable for the 
better part of 10 years. Between 1987 and 1992, there was an increase 
of only 400 cases filed in U.S. District Courts; 265,234 cases versus 
265,612 cases. With the judiciary's drive toward increased automation 
and more efficient paperwork procedures, I believe that this amendment 
is a reasonable step to reduce unnecessary staff. Greater efficiency 
must be achieved in support operations in the judiciary. This amendment 
will help streamline judicial branch staff and achieve more efficiency.
  I would now like to take a moment to touch upon a specific staffing 
practice within the judiciary that concerns me, which, while not 
directly addressed by this amendment, demonstrates the need for 
increased congressional oversight of judicial staffing practices.
  In January 1994, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 
announced that there were a total of 674 overtarget positions within 
the judiciary. These are employees who were employed in excess of 
required staffing formula levels. They are considered to not be 
necessary for the continued operation of the judiciary.
  Even though the AOC has finally begun the process of eliminating 
those overtarget positions, considerable concern remains regarding the 
overall revision of workload staffing formulas, which, in some 
instances, have not been modernized or updated from between 5 to 14 
years.
  The amendment offered by Mr. Young and myself is needed because the 
judiciary should no longer be allowed to ignore the fiscal realities 
the Federal Government faces. This amendment is a reasoned, well 
thought-out step in the right direction. It is a small step. However, 
every little step adds up, and this step is in the direction that we 
absolutely must go.
  The fundamental goal of this amendment is to bring attention to the 
fact that current employment trends in the judicial branch are 
inconsistent with the Federal Government's changing policies regarding 
personnel levels. Over the past 15 years, the total number of 
legislative branch employees has actually dropped by 8.6 percent. At 
the same time, employment in the executive branch has increased by 3.3 
percent and employment in the executive branch has risen by 97.5 
percent. A 97.5-percent increase over the last 15 years. This is 
clearly illustrated by this chart. The bar on the left represents the 
increases in staffing levels of the judiciary over the last 15 years.
  The legislative branch is taking a cut. The executive branch is 
taking a cut. These are tough cuts. We cannot allow the judiciary 
branch to avoid needed administrative reforms simply because they do 
important work. We all do important work. Our workload here in Congress 
certainly hasn't gotten any lighter. But we are still doing our share 
to reduce the cost of Government.
  The American people are being asked to sacrifice to ensure that our 
country remains on track. The Federal Government has taken on the task 
of matching that sacrifice, and we have the obligation to ensure that 
scarce Federal resources are used wisely and fairly across all three 
branches of Government. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  As he correctly points out, the American people are demanding that 
the Federal Government eliminate waste, fraud, and unnecessary 
bureaucracy in all Federal departments and agencies, including the 
judiciary. Through our work on the Appropriations Committee, we have 
made every effort to see that this is done in each of the 
appropriations bills we bring before the House this year. Congress has 
directed that sharp reductions be made in executive branch agencies and 
in our own legislative operations. The judiciary cannot be exempt from 
this effort.
  There is no question that the judiciary can discharge its duties in a 
more efficient and cost effective manner. As my colleague from Indiana 
said before, staffing levels at the Department of Justice have risen by 
62 percent in the past 10 years.
  It is the responsibility of Congress and specifically the 
Appropriations Committee to decide the funding that will be made 
available to the judiciary each fiscal year. It is also the 
responsibility of the Congress to ensure that the American people have 
the greatest possible access to the courts.
  As our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], said so 
eloquently during debate last week, by authority of the Constitution, 
it is Congress that directs, and authorizes, where Federal courts will 
sit and the facilities they will use. Obviously, as with every Federal 
agency, there is consultation between the two branches of Government, 
but ultimately it is Congress that has the final authority to make 
these decisions.
  Unfortunately, a tradition has seemed to evolve in which the courts 
have been left to decide where the courts will sit and in what 
facilities. The courts have been left to decide how many people they 
require to dispense justice and where they should be located.

  The amendment today is a reaffirmation that Congress will make those 
decisions and that Congress is demanding that the judiciary join with 
the other two branches of the Federal Government to find a more 
efficient way to discharge their responsibilities.
  It has long been my belief that the courts could operate more 
efficiently by bringing justice closer to the people. Rather than 
consolidate the court's operations in palatial facilities in a few 
select cities, court facilities should be established in those areas 
where the population and caseload demand.
  This would not only make greater use of limited Federal resources but 
would also provide greater access and convenience for jurors, 
litigants, and attorneys who the courts are there to serve. It would be 
my hope, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment will send a message to the 
judiciary that Congress expects the courts to join the other branches 
of the Federal Government in finding ways to operate more efficiently--
not only in the use of the time and resources of the Federal Government 
and employees, but in the use of the time and resources of the people 
the courts serve.
  Mr. Chairman, I again want to compliment my colleague from Indiana 
for his work and research in this regard. We plan to work together in 
the months ahead to track the judiciary's effort to streamline their 
operations and ultimately bring justice closer to the people in the 
most efficient manner possible.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] has cleared 
this amendment with the majority and the minority, and we accept it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the 
     National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed 
     $2,250,000 to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


                           defender services

       For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community 
     Defender organizations, the compensation and reimbursement of 
     expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under 
     the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, the 
     compensation and reimbursement of expenses of persons 
     furnishing investigative, expert and other services under the 
     Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)), the compensation 
     (in accordance with Criminal Justice Act maximums) and 
     reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to assist 
     the court in criminal cases where the defendant was waived 
     representation by counsel, the compensation and reimbursement 
     of travel expenses of guardians ad litem acting on behalf of 
     financially eligible minor or incompetent offenders in 
     connection with transfers from the United States to foreign 
     countries with which the United States has a treaty for the 
     execution of penal sentences, and the compensation of 
     attorneys appointed to represent jurors in civil actions for 
     the protection of their employment, as authorized by 28 
     U.S.C. 1875(d), $250,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3006(I): Provided, That 
     not to exceed $19,800,000 shall be available to Death Penalty 
     Resource Centers.


                    fees of jurors and commissioners

       For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of 
     commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to 
     rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 
     U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)); $56,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the compensation of 
     land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of 
     the highest rate payable under section 5332 of title 5, 
     United States Code.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Visclosky

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

       Amedment offered by Mr. Visclosky: On page 59, line 17, 
     strike $56,000,000 and insert in lieu thereof $62,692,000.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment along 
with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young]. This 
amendment would restore $6.692 million to the fund for Federal juries. 
Specifically, this money would go towards fees and allowances of (grand 
and petit) jurors and for the compensation of land commissioners and 
jury commissioners.
  As you may know, in recent years Congress has had to reexamine 
funding for Federal jurors. Specifically, in 1989, Congress was forced 
to pass a supplemental appropriation which included a provision adding 
money to the fund for jurors. This emergency supplemental addressed a 
serious shortfall that occurred in the jury fee account.
  For fiscal year 1995, the Committee has recommended $56 million for 
jury fees, which represents a reduction of $21 million from the fiscal 
year 1994 amount, and $18 million less than the President's budget 
request. The $6.692 million increase provided for by this amendment 
will help to ensure that additional supplemental appropriations for 
jurors will not be needed for fiscal year 1995.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Again, the gentleman has discussed this with the majority and the 
minority sides and both of us are in agreement to support this 
amendment. We rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  The amendment was agreed to.
       The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                             court security

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     incident to the procurement, installation, and maintenance of 
     security equipment and protective services for the United 
     States Courts in courtrooms and adjacent areas, including 
     building ingress-egress control, inspection of packages, 
     directed security patrols, and other similar activities as 
     authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and 
     Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702); $97,000,000, to 
     be expended directly or transferred to the United States 
     Marshals Service which shall be responsible for administering 
     elements of the Judicial Security Program consistent with 
     standards or guidelines agreed to by the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the 
     Attorney General.

           Administrative Office of the United States Courts


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor 
     vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and 
     rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $46,500,000, 
     of which not to exceed $7,500 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Judicial Center


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as 
     authorized by Public Law 90-219, $18,828,000; of which 
     $1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 1996, 
     to provide education and training to Federal court personnel; 
     and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                       Judicial Retirement Funds


                    payment to judiciary trust funds

       For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $21,000,000, to the Judicial 
     Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c), 
     $6,900,000, and to the United States Court of Federal Claims 
     Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l), 
     $575,000.

                  United States Sentencing Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code, 
     $8,468,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                   General Provisions--The Judiciary

       Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this 
     title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be 
     available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 302. Appropriations made in this title shall be 
     available for salaries and expenses of the Special Court 
     established under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 
     1973, Public Law 93-236.
       Sec. 303. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in 
     this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but 
     no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any 
     such transfers; Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this 
     section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under 
     section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 304. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts, 
     courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses 
     of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided, 
     That such available funds shall not exceed $10,000 and shall 
     be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts in his capacity as Secretary of 
     the Judicial Conference.
       This title may be cited as ``The Judiciary Appropriation 
     Act, 1995''.

        TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Maritime Administration


                    operating-differential subsidies

                  (liquidation of contract authority)

       For the payment of obligations incurred for operating-
     differential subsidies as authorized by the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1936, as amended, $214,356,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                        operations and training

       For necessary expenses of operations and training 
     activities authorized by law, $76,100,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     use proceeds derived from the sale or disposal of National 
     Defense Reserve Fleet vessels that are currently collected 
     and retained by the Maritime Administration, to be used for 
     facility and ship maintenance, modernization and repair, 
     conversion, acquisition of equipment, and fuel costs 
     necessary to maintain training at the United States Merchant 
     Marine Academy and State maritime academies: Provided 
     further, That reimbursements may be made to this 
     appropriation from receipts to the ``Federal Ship Financing 
     Fund'' for administrative expenses in support of that program 
     in addition to any amount heretofore appropriated.


                          ready reserve force

                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses to acquire and maintain a surge 
     shipping capability in the National Defense Reserve Fleet in 
     an advanced state of readiness and for related programs, 
     $179,415,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That reimbursement may be made to the Operations and Training 
     appropriation for expenses related to this program.
       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-121, $27,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That of the 
     total amount rescinded, $9,000,000 shall be derived from 
     amounts proposed to be reprogrammed from funds appropriated 
     for Fleet Additions to Maintenance and Operations.


          maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the 
     Merchant Marine Act of 1936, $25,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, not to exceed $2,000,000, which 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operations and Training.


           administrative provisions--maritime administration

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish utilities 
     and services and make necessary repairs in connection with 
     any lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government 
     property under control of the Maritime Administration, and 
     payments received therefor shall be credited to the 
     appropriation charged with the cost thereof: Provided, That 
     rental payments under any such lease, contract, or occupancy 
     for items other than such utilities, services, or repairs 
     shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       No obligations shall be incurred during the current fiscal 
     year from the construction fund established by the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the 
     appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in 
     any prior appropriation Act, and all receipts which otherwise 
     would be deposited to the credit of said fund shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

                    Commission on Immigration Reform


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Immigration 
     Reform pursuant to section 141(f) of the Immigration Act of 
     1990, $1,494,000, to remain available until expended.

            Commission of Security and Cooperation in Europe


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304, 
     $1,090,000, to remain available until expended as authorized 
     by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.

                     Competitiveness Policy Council


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Competitiveness Policy 
     Council as authorized by section 5209 of the Omnibus Trade 
     and Competitiveness Act of 1988, $1,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended.

                        Marine Mammal Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, as amended, 
     $1,320,000.

           Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Martin Luther King, Jr. 
     Federal Holiday Commission, as authorized by Public Law 98-
     399, as amended, $300,000.

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $20,949,000, of which $2,500,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                     Small Business Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law 
     101-574, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed 
     $3,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $258,900,000; Provided, That the Administrator is authorized 
     to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by 
     the Small Business Administration; certain loan servicing 
     activities; and installing and servicing the agency's 
     computer-based electronic bulletin board: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, revenues received from 
     all such activities shall be credited to this account, to be 
     available for carrying out these purposes without further 
     appropriation. Of the total amount appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $73,300,000 shall be available for grants for 
     performance in fiscal year 1995 or fiscal year 1996 for Small 
     Business Centers as authorized by section 21 of the Small 
     Business Act, as amended: Provided further, That not more 
     than $500,000 of the total amount in this paragraph shall be 
     available to pay the expenses of the National Small Business 
     Development Center Advisory Board and to reimburse Centers 
     for participating in evaluations as provided in section 20(a) 
     of such Act, and to maintain a clearinghouse as provided in 
     section 21(g)(2) of such Act.
       None of the funds appropriated for the Small Business 
     Administration under this Act may be used to impose any new 
     or increased user fee or management assistance fee for the 
     Small Business Development Center Program.


                      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 (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by 
     Public Law 100-504), $8,500,000.


                     business loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $8,500,000, and for the cost 
     of guaranteed loans, $321,067,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 
     631 note of which $30,000,000 shall be used to pre-pay the 
     Federal Financing Bank for debentures guaranteed by the 
     Administration pursuant to section 503 of the Small Business 
     Investment Act: Provided, That such cost, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $97,000,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses.


                     disaster loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans authorized by Section 7(b) of 
     the Small Business Act, as amended, $52,153,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this or 
     any other Act may be used for the cost of direct loans to any 
     borrower under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act to 
     relocate voluntarily outside the business area in which the 
     disaster has occurred.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $78,000,000, which may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriations for Salaries and Expenses.
       In addition, for the cost of emergency disaster loans and 
     associated administrative expenses, $125,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That these funds, or any 
     portion thereof, shall be available beginning in fiscal year 
     1995 to the extent that the President notifies the Congress 
     of his designation of any or all of these amounts as 
     emergency requirements under the Budget Enforcement Act of 
     1990: Provided further, That Congress hereby designates these 
     amounts as emergency requirements pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D).


                 surety bond guarantees revolving fund

       For additional capital for the ``Surety Bond Guarantees 
     Revolving Fund'', authorized by the Small Business Investment 
     Act, as amended, $5,369,000, to remain available without 
     fiscal year limitation as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note.


        administrative provisions--small business administration

       Sec. 401. None of the funds provided by this Act for the 
     Small Business Administration may be used to guarantee any 
     participating securities authorized by Public Law 102-366 
     until legislation has been enacted which directly or 
     indirectly prohibits the filing of a petition under the 
     Bankruptcy Code by a small business investment company 
     licensed under subsection (c) or (d) of section 301 of the 
     Small Business Investment Act of 1958 or regulations 
     implemented to reduce risks of the Small Business 
     Administration from companies licensed under section (c) or 
     (d) of section 301 of the Small Business Investment Act of 
     1958.
       Sec. 402. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Small Business Administration during fiscal year 1995, 
     $1,021,000 are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Administrator of the Small Business Administration 
     shall allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled 
     among the agency's accounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses. Amounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses in each such 
     account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to such 
     account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 
     U.S.C. 403(2).

                       Legal Services Corporation


               payment to the legal services corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     as amended, $415,000,000; of which $350,700,000 is for basic 
     field programs, $9,390,000 is for Native American programs; 
     $13,830,000 is for migrant programs; $1,435,000 is for law 
     school clinics; $1,305,000 is for supplemental field 
     programs; $870,000 is for regional training centers; 
     $10,800,000 is for national support; $11,585,000 is for State 
     support; $785,000 is for client initiatives; $1,145,000 is 
     for the Clearinghouse; $655,000 is for computer assisted 
     legal research regional centers; and $12,500,000 is for 
     Corporation management and administration.


          administrative provision--legal services corporation

       Sec. 403. (a) Funds appropriated under this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation and distributed to each grantee 
     funded in fiscal year 1995, pursuant to the number of poor 
     people determined by the Bureau of the Census to be within 
     its geographical area, shall be distributed in the following 
     order:
       (1) Grants from the Legal Services Corporation and 
     contracts entered into with Legal Services Corporation under 
     section 1006(a)(1) of the Legal Services Corporation Act, as 
     amended, shall be maintained in fiscal year 1995 at not less 
     than the annual level at which each grantee and contractor 
     was funded in fiscal year 1994 pursuant to Public Law 103-
     121.
       (2) 50 percent of new basic field funds shall be awarded to 
     grantees and contractors funded at the lowest levels per-
     poor-person (calculated for each grantee or contractor by 
     dividing each such grantee or contractor's fiscal year 1990 
     grant level by the number of poor persons within its 
     geographical area under the 1990 census) so as to fund the 
     largest number of programs possible at an equal per-poor-
     person amount.
       (3) 50 percent of new basic field funds shall be allocated 
     to grantees and contractors in an amount that is appropriate 
     to the number of poor people in such grantee or contractor's 
     service area as enumerated in the 1990 census.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose 
     prohibited or limited by or contrary to any of the provisions 
     of--
       (1) section 607 of Public Law 101-515, and that all funds 
     appropriated for the Legal Services Corporation shall be 
     subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in 
     section 607 of Public Law 101-515, except that the funding 
     formulas and provisos 15, 20 and 22 shall not apply, and all 
     references to ``1991'' in section 607 of Public Law 101-515 
     shall be deemed to be ``1995'', unless subparagraph (2) 
     applies; and
       (2) authorizing legislation for fiscal year 1995 for the 
     Legal Services Corporation that is enacted into law.

           TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

  Mr. MOLLOHAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 74, line 17, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments or points of order to this portion 
of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.

                              {time}  1800

  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    diplomatic and consular programs

       For necessary expenses of the Department of State and 
     Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including 
     expenses authorized by the State Department Basic Authorities 
     Act of 1956, as amended; representation to certain 
     international organizations in which the United States 
     participates pursuant to treaties, ratified pursuant to the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, or specific Acts of 
     Congress; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343, 40 U.S.C. 
     481(c) and 22 U.S.C. 2674; and for expenses of general 
     administration $1,703,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, during fiscal year 1995 the 
     Secretary of State is authorized to charge a fee for 
     processing passports on an expedited basis: Provided further, 
     That in order to control workload demands on passport 
     facilities, expedited passport processing will be available 
     only to those applicants who can demonstrate and document the 
     need to travel on an urgent basis and that such documentation 
     would normally include already-purchased tickets and a formal 
     itinerary: Provided further, That fees allocated under this 
     provision shall be used to fund the cost of providing 
     expedited passport processing and to enhance the quality and 
     efficiency of consular services: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall deposit such fees as an offsetting collection 
     to this appropriation account, to remain available until 
     expended, and shall expend not to exceed $18,000,000 in such 
     fee collections during fiscal year 1995. Of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph: not to exceed $3,000,000 
     shall be available for grants, contracts, and other 
     activities to conduct research and promote international 
     cooperation on environmental and other scientific issues; not 
     to exceed $500,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     activities of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing 
     Government Secrecy; $300,000 shall be available for 
     recruitment of Hispanic American students and for the 
     training of Hispanic Americans for careers in the Foreign 
     Service and in international affairs; and not to exceed 
     $300,000 shall be available to carry out the activities of 
     the Office of Cambodian Genocide Investigations. None of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available to 
     carry out the provisions of section 101(b)(2)(E) of Public 
     Law 103-236.


                    amendment offered by Mr. stearns

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 75, line 5, strike 
     ``$1,703,000,000'' and insert ``$1,700,200,000''.

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, both the House and Senate of the U.S. 
Congress have gone on record on a matter of great concern to many 
Americans--ending the resettlement of Iraqi former prisoners of war in 
the United States. The fiscal year 1994 Defense authorization contained 
language expressing the sense of Congress that former Iraqi POW's 
should not be resettled in the United States, unless they directly 
helped American forces. That, according to State, would not apply to 
4,000 persons eligible for resettlement.
  Since 1991, American taxpayers have been resettling refugees from the 
Persian Gulf war. I have no objection to that. However, Americans do 
not believe that we should be resettling some of the soldiers who raped 
Kuwait and fought against our troops. And that is what we have been 
doing.
  Using State Department statements that approximately 4,000 of the 
Iraqi refugees were true POW's, approximately 10 percent--or 400--of 
those refugees who have come to this country since 1992 would not fall 
into any of the groups whose entry into this country could be justified 
for any reason. On average, it costs $7,000 per refugee to conduct 
these resettlements.
  And, in spite of the concerns raised by Congress, no significant 
safeguards to prevent entry of more former Iraqi soldiers have been 
implemented by the State Department.
  This, in spite of the fact that, without an effort to match refugees' 
claims with military records, there is no information available to 
corroborate or disprove these claims, according to an informal review 
by the GAO.
  At the same time, none of the other countries that participated in 
Operation Desert Storm or any of the Middle Eastern countries, whose 
survival the United States helped protect, have made any significant 
contribution to these resettlements.
  I give great credit to the Scandinavian countries who have made 
substantial contributions in this regard. Iran, for less humanitarian 
reasons, has also accepted several thousand refugees. But State 
Department claims that many countries have accepted these refugees are 
false. The total number of refugees from all other countries was only 
150 persons through 1993.
  This failure to influence other countries to contribute their fair 
share is another fact that upsets my constituents and many Members of 
this House. To the best of my knowledge, in spite of promises by the 
State Department, this situation has not improved.
  This is a source of continuing frustration for those of us whose 
constituents have written and called to express their opposition to the 
policy of allowing Iraqi POW's to be resettled in this country. In the 
past year, Members of both houses of Congress have gone on record in 
the form of resolutions to stop these settlements.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Stearns was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, that has not worked. Thus, I think we need 
to take the next step today and make a symbolic cut in the State 
Department's budget to send this message.
  My amendment would reduce the expenses for general administration of 
the State Department by $2.8 million. This is equal to the cost of 
resettling 400 former Iraqi POW's.
  I have had some difficulty deciding where to offer this amendment. My 
goal has been to avoid cutting our foreign operations or State 
Department budget in any way that might cause real pain to innocent 
persons.
  That ruled out some more directly related international activities 
such as refugee resettlement or international peacekeeping.
  Thus, I come to the floor today to offer an amendment making a modest 
$2.8 million reduction in the operating budget of the U.S. State 
Department. This is just a fraction of 1 percent of this budget. I 
believe that such a small cut could be absorbed without doing any 
unintended harm to our diplomatic mission.
  In fact, the committee report states that administrative flexibility 
is built into this budget so that funds may be shifted between accounts 
where necessary. This general administration account also includes 
$11.9 million made available for the Bureau of Refugee Programs, money 
not normally a part of this appropriations bill.
  Passing the Stearns amendment will send two important messages to the 
State Department. First of all, it will show that Congress will require 
compliance with the wishes it expressed in both the Defense 
authorization and the Iraqi Claims Act. That is, that only former POW's 
who could prove they assisted the United States would be eligible for 
refugee status. This could be done by establishing a valid screening 
program that checks U.N. records against U.S. military records.
  Second, it will prod the Department to pressure the United Nations 
and participating countries to assist in resettling the many legitimate 
refugees still in the Middle East. Most importantly, it will send a 
message to the State Department that the will of Congress on an issue 
cannot simply be ignored.
  Americans throughout the country have demanded some type of action on 
this issue and almost 100 members of this body, Democrats and 
Republicans, have cosponsored the resolution I introduced calling for 
an end to these resettlements.
  The least we can do is find a way to save, for the taxpayers, an 
amount equal to the cost of resettling former enemy soldiers. We owe it 
to the American people, and we especially owe it to our veterans who 
cannot understand how we are spending money on Iraqi POW's while we are 
cutting veterans programs.
  That is what this amendment does, and I ask for your support.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, 
counting the time that the gentleman has already consumed. I will then 
use 2\1/2\ minutes and yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Stearns] to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] for 3 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
There are a number of substantive reasons to oppose it. I am advised 
that neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration have admitted into 
the United States any person whose admission would justify legitimate 
concern as expressed by the gentleman. It is my understanding that no 
Iraqi has resettled in the United States without demonstrating under 
U.S. law a well-founded fear of persecution.

                              {time}  1810

  I know that the screening process has been very thorough. It has been 
very exacting, and in both President Bush's and President Clinton's 
administrations this program has been carried forward with the utmost 
care.
  While being able to make those substantive arguments against the 
gentleman's amendment is possible, I simply want to point out, Mr. 
Chairman, that I think this is the wrong bill for the gentleman to 
offer this amendment. He is proposing a cut to the Commerce-Justice-
State bill, and this program is funded in the foreign operations 
appropriation bill. So, I implore my colleagues to note that the State 
Department operating accounts that the gentleman's amendment is 
directed at are not used to pay for resettlement costs of refugees.
  So, I am repeating that while there might be a number of substantive 
arguments that can be made against this amendment, the one that I want 
to advance most strongly here is that this program is not funded in 
this bill. So, we are in the wrong ball park on this.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from West 
Virginia that we asked for a GAO audit of the policy at the State 
Department, and the State Department has compiled some detailed 
information about the former POW's who were admitted in fiscal year 
1993, and this is the key sentence:

       Information to corroborate or disprove the refugee 
     statements about these activities is not available.

  The State Department could not provide it. It is not available, so it 
is not clear how they made a decision to allow these Iraqi POW's in, 
and I understand what the gentleman is saying, but this is symbolic, 
and it is important to the people and the veterans in this country that 
we take this money out and say, ``Look, we are not going to resettle 
any more Iraqi POW's.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, almost 2 months ago, my Democratic 
colleagues challenged Republicans to stop the resettlement of Iraqi 
soldiers into this country by offering a motion to recommit the Iraqi 
Claims Act with instructions to the committee to prohibit any more 
Iraqi POW's from being resettled. We met that challenge and offered a 
motion to recommit the bill. The language was changed and it passed 
unanimously.
  Today, I rise again to challenge my Democratic colleagues to 
demonstrate that they agree with most Republicans, and most other 
Americans, to stop using taxpayer money to resettle former enemy 
prisoners of war from the Persian Gulf war.
  I challenge my Democratic colleagues to support the Stearns amendment 
which will reduce $2.8 million from the State Department general 
administration account, which is the approximate amount that it cost 
the American taxpayer to resettle about 400 Iraqi enemy prisoners of 
war. I say approximate because to this date, we have not received a 
full accounting of this resettlement. The United States accepted a 
United Nations definition of refugee that included all Iraqis let in 
the Saudi Arabia camps, including all POW's. Since then, it has almost 
been impossible to find out if a former Iraqi soldier did fire on our 
troops or contributed significantly to our side of the war.
  We have heard from our constituents how appalled they are that this 
dangerous policy continues. We have heard from our veterans how 
betrayed they feel that they must pay for the cost of resettling former 
enemy soldiers while their own veteran programs face constant budgetary 
restraints. We have also heard from our military retirees who are 
furious that they must foot the bill of this unfair policy while their 
own cost of living raises are delayed. And last weeks report from the 
Department of Defense finding no connection between service in the gulf 
war and the illnesses facing many American veterans only add fuel to 
the fire.
  To those who say it will hurt State Department operations, I say they 
have a choice. They can fund essential functions or they can continue 
to resettle Iraqi POW's. I wish we had the opportunity to direct the 
State Department, but that would be out of order ruled by the 
Parliamentarian. This may be our only opportunity to send a message to 
the State Department to express our outrage at the inadequate change of 
direction in policy.
  I urge my colleagues to show the American people that we have heard 
them, and have listened. Vote for the Stearns amendment to the 
Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. In accordance with the unanimous-consent request that 
was granted by the House earlier, the Chair will postpone further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Stearns] until a later time. That means that at a later time the 
gentleman's request will be pending.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, a recorded vote is not 
automatic. I will have to go through this again.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce to the gentleman when it is an 
appropriate time for him to protect his request. The Chair will not 
overlook the gentleman.
  Mr. STEARNS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am just worried that I will not be 
here.
  Can I make a point of order that a quorum is not present and go 
through the whole procedure so it becomes an automatic vote so I will 
not have to depend upon my presence, my being here?
  Mr. Chairman, I am just saying that I want to make sure that this is 
an automatic vote and that it is not a vote dependent upon my being 
here.
  The CHAIRMAN. Some Member will have to make a point of no quorum 
pending the request for a recorded vote, and at that point the Chair 
will put the request in the usual fashion.
  In other words, if enough Members stand, the gentleman will get a 
recorded vote. This will just expedite the proceedings.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I seek to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.
  The State Department, Mr. Chairman, has the worst department of the 
executive branch in terms of solving its employment complaints. 
Hispanics, who represent almost 10 percent of America's population, 
represent less than 5 percent of the work force at the Department of 
State. They are also particularly underrepresented at the higher levels 
of State where only 10 Hispanic men and not one Hispanic woman served 
in the senior Foreign Service of over 850 and where only 2 ambassadors 
of over 160 are Americans of Hispanic descent. Of the $500,000 that was 
authorized for the recruitment of Hispanics in the Department of State 
authorization bill, the Appropriations Committee was only able to come 
up with $300,000. Since this was not a prejudicial cutback, would the 
chairman be willing to accede to a higher figure in the conference on 
this bill?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, the Chair will assure the gentleman it will make 
every effort to accommodate the gentleman on this matter during 
conference.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] for his willingness to cooperate.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this matter 
and for bringing this matter to our attention today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, not to exceed $700,000 in registration fees 
     collected pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control 
     Act, as amended, may be used in accordance with section 45 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, 22 U.S.C. 
     2717; and in addition not to exceed $1,223,000 shall be 
     derived from fees from other executive agencies for lease or 
     use of facilities located at the International Center in 
     accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act 
     (Public Law 90-553, as amended by section 120 of Public Law 
     101-246); and in addition not to exceed $15,000 which shall 
     be derived from reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use 
     of Blair House facilities in accordance with section 46 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     2718(a)).
       Notwithstanding section 502 of this Act, not to exceed 20 
     percent of the amounts made available in this Act in the 
     appropriation accounts, ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' 
     and ``Salaries and Expenses'' under the heading 
     ``Administration of Foreign Affairs'' may be transferred 
     between such appropriation accounts: Provided further, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
     the Department of State and the Foreign Service, provided for 
     by law, including expenses authorized by section 9 of the Act 
     of August 31, 1964, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3721), and the 
     State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended, 
     $385,000,000.


                      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 (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), $23,850,000.


                       representation allowances

       For representation allowances as authorized by section 905 
     of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended (22 U.S.C. 
     4085), $4,780,000.


              protection of foreign missions and officials

       For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the 
     Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective 
     services in accordance with the provisions of section 214 of 
     the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
     4314) and 3 U.S.C. 208, $9,579,000: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available 
     to carry out section 101(b)(4)(A) of Public Law 103-236: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph, not to exceed $500,000 shall be available to carry 
     out section 101(b)(4)(B) of Public Law 103-236.


            acquisition and maintenance of buildings abroad

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service 
     Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 292-300), and 
     the Diplomatic Security Construction Program as authorized by 
     title IV of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism 
     Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4851), $411,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c); 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be available for acquisition of furniture and 
     furnishings and generators for other departments and 
     agencies. Of the funds made available in this paragraph 
     $92,864,000 shall be available for Maintenance of Buildings 
     and Facility Rehabilitation.


           emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service

       For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to 
     meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and 
     Consular Service pursuant to the requirement of 31 U.S.C. 
     3526(e) $6,500,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c), of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     Repatriation Loans Program Account, subject to the same terms 
     and conditions.


                   repatriation loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $593,000, as authorized by 22 
     U.S.C. 2671: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct 
     loan program, $183,000 which may be transferred to and merged 
     with the Salaries and Expenses account under Administration 
     of Foreign Affairs.


              payment to the american institute in taiwan

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations 
     Act, Public Law 96-8 (93 Stat. 14), $15,465,000.


     payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $129,321,000.

              International Organizations and Conferences


              contributions to international organizations

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
     annual obligations of membership in international 
     multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified 
     pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions 
     or specific Acts of Congress, $913,941,000, of which not to 
     exceed $40,719,000 is available to pay arrearages, the 
     payment of which shall be directed toward special activities 
     that are mutually agreed by the United States and the 
     respective international organization: Provided, That 20 
     percent of the funds appropriated in this paragraph for the 
     assessed contribution of the United States to the United 
     Nations shall be withheld from obligation and expenditure 
     pursuant to section 401(a)(2) of Public Law 103-236 until a 
     certification is made under section 401(b) of said Act: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be available for a United States contribution 
     to an international organization for the United States share 
     of interest costs made known to the United States Government 
     by such organization for loans incurred on or after October 
     1, 1984, through external borrowings.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of title V through page 94, line 6, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  If I am not mistaken, does not the amendment of the gentleman from 
Illinois occur at page 91 of the bill, line 23?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are operating now 
under unanimous-consent request, as it applies to title V, in terms of 
rolling votes. How will that affect the ability to offer an amendment 
to any of the amendments that might be offered?

                              {time}  1820

  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman restate his parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. BERMAN. The question is, we will now be proceeding to hear 
amendments to title V and rolling votes on any of the amendments where 
a vote is requested. If one wants to amend an amendment being offered 
to title V under this procedure, how would one do that and how would 
one get recognized?
  The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair understands the situation, on an amendment 
to the amendment, the vote on that would still be postponed until the 
end of debate on other amendments to title V.
  Mr. BERMAN. I have a further parliamentary inquiry. Could the Chair 
explain the order of votes on amendments? Are all votes on amendments 
being rolled? What is the first amendment that will be voted on when we 
go to a vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The only request that has been postponed following the 
Chair's announcement that there would be a rolling of the votes has 
been the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, is there any amendment which has been 
excluded from the unanimous consent to roll each vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. No, not so far.
  Mr. BERMAN. So what is the nature of the unanimous-consent request 
that was granted?
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request was that the request for 
a recorded vote on amendments be postponed until the end of debate on 
further amendments to this title. This is to be done at the Chair's 
discretion, after consultation with the chairman and the ranking member 
of the appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. BERMAN. If I might make a last parliamentary inquiry, would it be 
in order after an amendment has been voted on, depending on the result 
of that amendment, to then offer an amendment, after all debate time 
has expired, to the next amendment, based on what had happened on an 
earlier amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The chairman is informed by the parliamentarian that 
such a second degree amendment would not be in order, if the question 
had been put earlier on the first degree amendment and the voice vote 
announced.


                    amendment offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an 
amendment at page 78.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, has the Clerk 
not read beyond that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The problem is that we had passed that in the reading, 
and unanimous consent is required to go back to it. The Chair was 
inquiring if there was any objection to going back to this point. The 
gentleman did not present his amendment in a timely fashion or the 
Chair may have been at fault for this.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the request of the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Inslee] is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee: Page 78, line 23, strike 
     ``$411,000,000'' and insert ``$396,000,000''.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and 
my time be equally divided between the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the question of the gentleman 
from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Inslee] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes each.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Inslee].
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman and the committee 
in its productive efforts to meet the targets that we have set. Now it 
is the responsibility of all of us on the floor to share the burden of 
wringing out from the overseas embassy funds a reasonable and realistic 
reduction to help in reaching the deficit reduction goals. For this 
reason, I am submitting to my colleagues an amendment to cut the State 
Department Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad Fund by an 
amount equal to 3.5 percent of the proposed appropriation, a $15 
million reduction.
  This reduction is entirely consistent with our need to request our 
agencies to tighten their belts to some modest degree in light of 
today's deficit. I am convinced that this minimal reduction will not 
result in the collapse of our diplomatic efforts abroad for several 
reasons.
  First, it represents a 1-percent cut below funds actually spent for 
building acquisition and maintenance last year. In other words, out of 
the $400 million actually spent for building acquisition and 
maintenance last year, this amendment will cut only $4 million.
  Second, it is clear that the proposed budget does not simply maintain 
existing levels of security and floor space. Besides a new embassy in 
Ottawa, the proposed funding level would permit various upgrades such 
as perimeter controls, new backup generators, and new shatter-proof 
windows. In short, this amendment will permit continuation of existing 
floor space with existing security levels and existing types of power 
supplies. It will not put at risk our existing infrastructure.
  Third, this area of Government is important to our national 
interests, but it is not one where we have experienced an emergency 
need for funding, as we have in our criminal justice system and our 
immigration system. Simply put, this is an area that can tolerate some 
modest reduction without jeopardizing our national goals.
  Fourth, this level of reduction is consistent with the type of cuts 
we have required of our other agencies.
  Two and one-half million dollars for new security fences and other 
items in Copenhagen may be something that we can do at some point, but 
we have a current-known threat pounding on our door right now in the 
shape of the deficit.
  Additional generators at a cost of $5 million for places like Buenos 
Aires to use in case of a blackout might be desirable, but our foreign 
policy has functioned alright without this backup. Our fiscal status is 
in a blackout mode, here, right now.
  Simply put, we must recognize that our bigger deficit is in the 
budget, not in our embassies.
  I commend this amendment to you.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Inslee]. As stated, the amendment 
reduces the budget of the U.S. State Department by $15 million, which 
is 3.5 percent of their budget for embassies abroad. I believe it is 
important to note, as sometimes gets lost, that this amendment reduces 
the State Department appropriation for acquisition and maintenance of 
buildings abroad. While this is a very modest sum, maybe some would say 
paltry for this branch of the Government, we as the voice of the 
American public need to make a statement by reducing the State 
Department's budget because of a continued desire from the American 
public to be fiscally responsible, both here and on foreign shores.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to not only do what is 
fiscally responsible, but also what is legislatively accountable. 
America needs accountability and responsibility in its foreign affairs, 
just as we do with domestic matters. So please join me and vote yes on 
the Inslee amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. BARCA. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge passage of this 
amendment. As was indicated, this represents a fairly modest scaleback 
in the acquisition and maintenance building budget, because $10 million 
last year was used for salaries and expenses, so actually it represents 
probably closer to about a 1-percent cutback in this portion of the 
budget.
  This would be consistent with what we have done in other portions of 
the budget. As you recall, we passed an amendment cutting back on our 
construction costs for courthouses here in the United States. So when 
we look at the budget dealing with building new chancellory buildings 
in Ottawa, furnishings and furniture acquisitions abroad, facility 
rehabilitation and other maintenance kinds of programs, this would 
represent a rather modest cutback, one that certainly I believe we can 
handle.
  We made cutbacks here at home. Let us make some cutbacks abroad. I 
urge adoption of the Inslee-Barca amendment.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it should be 
understood that, the ranking minority member and myself, along with our 
colleagues on the committee, carefully reviewed every State Department 
account, because it was the State Department, that was cut most in our 
bill.
  We have very carefully gone through the accounts to ensure that every 
place that we could effect reductions, we did effect those reductions. 
As a matter of fact, the account regarding which the gentleman offers 
the amendment, we reduced by $11 million.
  This is a construction account. It is always easy to say that there 
has to be some money in there someplace that we can reduce. Well, 
perhaps that may be true if those accounts have not been carefully 
reviewed, and all of the demand on those accounts have not been 
carefully considered. On this bill here before us this evening, they 
have been. We carefully combed through this bill so that we could apply 
every single dollar that we had to the priorities in this bill: crime 
fighting and the economic initiatives of the President.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It sounds like a 
small amount of money. And to represent that we can defer maintenance, 
that we can defer construction, I submit that deferring only creates 
problems next year and the year after. It also compounds those problems 
with these kinds of amendments which are very popular, and 
unfortunately, are offered year after year, because those maintenance, 
those upgrades, those equipment buys become accumulating liabilities.
  I would encourage the body to oppose this amendment. It is crafted to 
be attractive and the appeal in the arguments of the gentleman have 
been eloquent.
  Regardless of that, I would oppose the amendment and ask respectfully 
that the body do likewise.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has well stated the position of the 
subcommittee. As he said, we worked at great length on the State 
Department portion of our bill.
  I would point out to the Members that the State Department budget is 
the only one that is actually cut from current levels. They are getting 
less money in this bill than they have right now for the current year.
  Do Members want to know why? Because we are giving the United Nations 
1.2 billion peacekeeping moneys that otherwise we did not know we were 
going to have to do. So we had to cut back the State Department. They 
have already been cut, including this account. So, in fact, we are $11 
million below the administration request as the bill is right at this 
point.
  So if we cut another 15 million from this maintenance of buildings 
account, I am afraid it is going to cost us more money down the road. 
Because if we cannot maintain these buildings now, we are going to 
spend twice as much or more down the road to repair them. I think we 
have made enough cuts already.
  If we would find a way to cut back on the amount of money that we are 
having to give the United Nations for these 16 peacekeeping missions 
around the world, Uncle Sam is paying 31.7 percent of that or at least 
is billed that by the United Nations, and that has caused us to have to 
cut back on the State Department accounts. Unless we control in the 
future the percentage that we are required to give the United Nations 
for peacekeeping, we will not have any money in the State Department at 
all. We will have to close these embassies around the world, I am 
afraid.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Inslee].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier today, 
further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Inslee] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses 
     of international peacekeeping activities directed to the 
     maintenance or restoration of international peace and 
     security, $533,304,000, of which not to exceed $288,000,000 
     is available to pay arrearage accumulated in fiscal year 1994 
     and not to exceed $23,092,000 is available to pay other 
     outstanding arrearages.


              international conferences and contingencies

       For necessary expenses authorized by section 5 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, in addition to 
     funds otherwise available for these purposes, contributions 
     for the United States share of general expenses of 
     international organizations and conferences and 
     representation to such organizations and conferences as 
     provided for by 22 U.S.C. 2656 and 2672 and personal services 
     without regard to civil service and classification laws as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5102, $6,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c), of which 
     not to exceed $200,000 may be expended for representation as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 4085.

                       International Commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet 
     obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or 
     specific Acts of Congress, as follows:


 international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico

       For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United 
     States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for 
     representation; as follows:


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     $13,947,000.


                              construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, $6,644,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c).

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I know of no 
amendment until page 92, line 4. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 92, line 3, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill through page 92, line 3, is as follows:


              american sections, international commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for the 
     International Joint Commission and the International Boundary 
     Commission, as authorized by treaties between the United 
     States and Canada or Great Britain, and for the Border 
     Environment Cooperation Commission as authorized by Public 
     Law 103-182; $5,800,000, of which not to exceed $9,000 shall 
     be available for representation expenses incurred by the 
     International Joint Commission.


                  international fisheries commissions

       For necessary expenses for international fisheries 
     commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by 
     law, $14,669,000: Provided, That the United States share of 
     such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions, 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.


                     payment to the asia foundation

       For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by 
     section 501 of Public Law 101-246, $15,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2696(c).

                General Provisions--Department of State

       Sec. 501. Funds appropriated under this title shall be 
     available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and 
     differentials as authorized by subchaper 59 of 5 U.S.C.; for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and hire of 
     passenger transportation pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1343(b).
       Sec. 502. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     State in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the 
     current fiscal year for the United States Information Agency 
     in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, 
     but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any 
     such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 503. Funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act or any other Act may be expended for 
     compensation of the United States Commissioner of the 
     International Boundary Commission, United States and Canada, 
     only for actual hours worked by such Commissioner.
       Sec. 504. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of State during fiscal year 1995, $5,566,000 are 
     permanently canceled.
       (b) The Secretary of State shall allocate the amount of 
     budgetary resources canceled among the Department's accounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses. 
     Amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in each such account shall be reduced by the 
     amount allocated to such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                  Arms Control and Disarmament Agency


                arms control and disarmament activities

       For necessary expenses not otherwise provided, for arms 
     control and disarmament activities, $54,500,000, of which not 
     to exceed $100,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses as authorized by the Act of September 
     26, 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2551 et seq.): Provided, That 
     of the budgetary resources available in fiscal year 1995 in 
     this account, $122,000 are permanently canceled: Provided 
     further, That amounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses, in this account are reduced by 
     such amount: Provided further, That as used herein, 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).

      Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of 
     America's Heritage Abroad, $206,000, as authorized by Public 
     Law 99-83, section 1303.

                     International Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed 
     $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $44,200,000, to remain available until expended.

               Japan-United States Friendship Commission


               japan-united states friendship trust fund

       For expenses of the Japan-United States Friendship 
     Commission as authorized by Public Law 94-118, as amended, 
     from the interest earned on the Japan-United States 
     Friendship Trust Fund, $1,247,000; and an amount of Japanese 
     currency not to exceed the equivalent of $1,420,000 based on 
     exchange rates at the time of payment of such amounts as 
     authorized by Public Law 94-118.

                    United States Information Agency


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     enable the United States Information Agency, as authorized by 
     the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as 
     amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended 
     (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 
     1977 (91 Stat. 1636), to carry out international 
     communication, educational and cultural activities; and to 
     carry out related activities authorized by law, including 
     employment, without regard to civil service and 
     classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to 
     exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by 22 
     U.S.C. 1471, and entertainment, including official 
     receptions, within the United States, not to exceed $25,000 
     as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1474(3); $476,362,000: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $1,400,000 may be used for representation 
     abroad as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1452 and 4085: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 of the amounts 
     allocated by the United States Information Agency to carry 
     out section 102(a)(3) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2452(a)(3)), shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $500,000 shall remain available until expended as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1477b(a), for expenses and 
     equipment necessary for maintenance and operation of data 
     processing and administrative services as authorized by 31 
     U.S.C. 1535-1536: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $7,615,000 to remain available until expended, may be 
     credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments 
     received from or in connection with English teaching, 
     library, motion pictures, and publication programs as 
     authorized by section 810 of the United States Information 
     and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $2,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended may be used to carry out projects involving 
     security construction and related improvements for agency 
     facilities not physically located together with Department 
     of State facilities abroad.


                      Office of inspector general

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3), and in 
     accordance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1105(a)(25), 
     $4,300,000.


               educational and cultural exchange programs

       For expenses of Fulbright, International Visitor, Humphrey 
     Fellowship, Citizen Exchange, Congress-Bundestag Exchange, 
     and other educational and cultural exchange programs, as 
     authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.), and 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977 (91 Stat. 1636), 
     $237,812,000, to remain available until expended as 
     authorized by 22 U.S.C. 2455: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $500,000 is for the American 
     Studies Collections program.


                 eisenhower exchange Fellowship Program

                               trust fund

       For payment to the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program 
     Trust Fund as authorized by the Eisenhower Exchange 
     Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-05), $2,100,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, 
     Incorporated to be derived from interest and earnings from 
     the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the Eisenhower Exchange 
     Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-05), $300,000 to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay any salary or 
     other compensation, or to enter into any contract providing 
     for the payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are not in accordance 
     with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform Administrative 
     Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for Non-profit 
     Organizations), including the restrictions on compensation 
     for personal services.


                    israeli arab scholarship program

       For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship 
     Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab 
     Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 1995, to remain 
     available until expended.


                 international broadcasting operations

       For expenses necessary to enable the United States 
     Information Agency, as authorized by the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, 
     and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, to carry out 
     international communication activities; $476,796,000, of 
     which not to exceed $10,000 may be used for official 
     receptions within the United States as authorized by 22 
     U.S.C. 1474(3) and not to exceed $35,000 may be used for 
     representation abroad as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1452 and 
     4085; and in addition, not to exceed $250,000 from fees as 
     authorized by section 810 of the United States Informational 
     and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, to remain 
     available until expended for carrying out authorized 
     purposes: Provided, That $239,735,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Board for International Broadcasting and shall remain 
     available until expended for expenses authorized by the Board 
     for International Broadcasting Act of 1973, as amended, of 
     which not to exceed $45,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph for the 
     Board for International Broadcasting may be used to relocate 
     the offices or operations of RFE/RL, Incorporated from 
     Munich, Germany: Provided further, That such amounts 
     appropriated to the Board for International Broadcasting in 
     fiscal year 1994 as are certified by the Office of Management 
     and Budget to the Congress as gains due to the fluctuation of 
     foreign currency, may be used in fiscal year 1995 and 
     thereafter either to offset foreign currency losses or to 
     offset unfunded RFE/RL costs associated with the 
     implementation of Public Law 103-236: Provided further, That 
     obligated but unexpended balances appropriated in fiscal year 
     1990 to fund planned transmitter modernization expenses may 
     be expended in fiscal year 1995 for unfunded RFE/RL costs 
     associated with the implementation of Public Law 103-236.


                           radio construction

       For an additional amount for the purchase, rent, 
     construction, and improvement of facilities for radio 
     transmission and reception and purchase and installation of 
     necessary equipment for radio and television transmission and 
     reception as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1471, $85,314,000 to 
     remain available until expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 
     1477b(a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the bill through page 92, 
line 3?


                    amendment offered by mr. porter

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Porter: Page 92, after line 3, 
     insert the following:

                            radio free asia

                    ``(including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Radio Free Asia 
     program, $10,000,000, to be derived from amounts provided in 
     this Act for ``Radio Construction''.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, at what point would it be appropriate to 
offer an amendment to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. At any time while this amendment is pending.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry: Is there a 
time limit?
  The CHAIRMAN. There has been no time limit set on debate on this 
amendment. There may be in the very near future, however.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 60 minutes and 
that my time be equally divided between the gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Rogers] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would ask 
the gentleman a question. My concern at this point is that if I agree 
to this, there will be other amendments than the one to my amendment 
that we think may be in order. If that were the only on to be offered, 
then the 60 minutes is agreeable. But if there are other amendments or 
other amendments to that amendment, then I would have to object.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am unaware of any others.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, can 
the gentleman agree to that?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
yes, I am agreeable to that. The gentleman is saying that if there is 
more than the amendment from the gentleman from California, then the 
gentleman would want an extension of time which would be understandable 
at that point.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if I may ask 
the Chair, assuming the time limit is agreed to and an amendment to the 
amendment is offered, will this amendment and the amendment to the 
amendment be voted on or will they be rolled pursuant to the previous 
unanimous-consent agreement until the end?

                              {time}  1840

  The CHAIRMAN. Apparently it is in the discretion of the Chair, after 
consultation with the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, to make a decision on that point. Such consultation and 
decisionmaking has not occurred as yet, however.
  Mr. BERMAN. On whether or not the vote is rolled, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield under his 
reservation of objection?
  Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think we can clarify this a bit for all 
parties. As I understand the unanimous consent order under which we are 
operating, Mr. Chairman, at the end of the debate when a vote would be 
requested by either party, at that point in time either the chairman of 
the committee or the ranking Republican could request the Chair for an 
immediate vote, as opposed to rolling it to the later time, is that 
correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of 
objection, it would be the intention of this gentleman to amend the 
gentleman's amendment to strike his $10 million cut in the radio 
construction account. That amendment would be subject to a point of 
order as exceeding the 602(b) allocations at this particular point.
  However, earlier amendments have sought to strike money, and if any 
of them are successful, Mr. Chairman, there would be that existing 
allocation, and the question is whether a ruling on this amendment 
could be delayed until such time as we know the result of amendments 
offered earlier but not yet voted on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman has posed an 
interesting theoretical question which the Chair is unable to rule upon 
at this point, until the actuality develops.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield under his 
reservation of objection?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that the 
difficulty that has been posed by his amendment is that no one had 
notice of it in adequate time to make the proper objections. Had we 
known about it, Mr. Chairman, it might well have worked out that it 
would fall in the right sequence so that the 602(b)'s were there. Now 
we find ourselves in a very difficult position in not having any 
objection to the amendment if the 602(b)'s are there, but we do not 
know that they are there, because votes have not been taken on previous 
amendments, and I would suspect, given the record of where we have been 
over this entire bill, that the 602(b) may well not be there, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I do not know where this leaves the gentleman's amendment, however, 
Mr. Chairman. The procedural quandary seems to me to be a very, very 
difficult one, and I suggest that maybe the gentleman should consider 
simply supporting the amendment the way it has been written, with the 
understanding that we will work this out in conference and make it 
correct on the construction side.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time on my reservation of 
objection, I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I believe my 
friend, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the chairman 
of the subcommittee, would suggest that I do the exact same thing and 
support his opposition to the amendment, so there we are.
  Mr. Chairman, if I might just add my reservation of objection, had I 
been on the floor when the unanimous consent request to roll votes was 
made, I would have objected for this very reason, but I was not, so I 
am trying myself to sort out what the Chair describes as an interesting 
theoretical problem.
  Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, if he 
had told me he was going to offer the amendment I would have made 
objection at the appropriate time, but I did not know.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] 
withdraw his reservation of objection?
  Mr. BERMAN. To the limit, Mr. Chairman? The gentleman withdraws his 
reservation of objection, yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] that there be a limitation of time?
  Mr. ROGERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, suppose 
there is an amendment to the amendment. Do we get extra for that, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed that we would not get extra time. 
It would come out of the time provided in the time limit.
  Mr. PORTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I think what 
we had agreed to, if I can correct the Chair on this, is that if there 
were other amendments beyond the amendment, the proposed amendment to 
my amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], 
then we would have further time, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. We have not agreed on the initial time limitation, as 
of yet. That unanimous-consent request is still pending.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan]?
  Mr. KOLBE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, would the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, restate the unanimous-consent agreement?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield the unanimous 
consent agreement is that all debate be limited to 1 hour.
  Mr. KOLBE. On what amendment, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. On the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter].
  Mr. KOLBE. And all amendments thereto?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. And all amendments thereto.
  Mr. PORTER. No, Mr. Chairman, just one amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Just the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. KOLBE. And the amendment thereto offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman]?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Just the so-called Berman amendment thereto.
  Mr. KOLBE. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, then 
the time limit will not apply to any other amendments that could be 
offered?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentlemen from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is correct.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Bentley] and I are offering an amendment today that will provide $10 
million in funding for Radio Free Asia to provide surrogate broadcasts 
to China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Tibet, and Laos. We are pleased 
to be joined by Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Wolf, and 
Mr. Smith of New Jersey, showing broad support on both sides of the 
aisle for Radio Free Asia.
  The United States has historically supported two types of 
international radio broadcasts to meet two very specific needs. The 
Voice of America has provided excellent programming designed to inform 
people in other nations about the United States. At the same time, 
surrogate broadcasting--like Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty--has 
provided programming not about America, but truth about what is 
happening in that country and the world.
  Both VOA and surrogate broadcasting are important foreign policy 
tools. Both have important missions and venues. Both have records of 
success. Both are extremely cost effective. Both are priorities and 
deserve strong support.
  Mrs. Bentley and I have been working for the last 5 years to bring 
surrogate broadcasting--messages of truth and freedom--to the oppressed 
people of Asia. In 1990, Mrs. Bentley and I introduced separate pieces 
of legislation that would create Radio Free Asia and Radio Free China, 
respectively. In 1991, Radio Free Asia was endorsed by the President's 
Task Force on International Broadcasting. In 1992, the Congressional 
Commission on Broadcasting to the People's Republic of China followed 
suit, recommending the establishment of a new Asian broadcast service. 
RFA was authorized by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which 
become law in April, and President Clinton requested $10 million for 
Radio Free Asia in his fiscal year 1995 budget request.

  Mr. Chairman, less than a month ago, in his announcement that he 
would extend MFN to China, the President said,

       I am also pursuing a new and vigorous American program to 
     support those in China working to advance the cause of human 
     rights and democracy. This program will include increased 
     broadcasts for Radio Free Asia. . .

  I received assurances from the White House this morning and this 
afternoon that ``the Administration is committed to pursuing the 
President's request for $10 million to fund Radio Free Asia.''
  Radio Free Asia is clearly a program whose time has come. The only 
problem is that the subcommittee failed to include it in this bill.
  The amendment that I would offer adds no new funds. We get the funds 
from an associated account, the Radio Construction Account. The bill 
has a total of $85.3 million in this account for this year, which is 
$12.2 million more than last year. In addition, it is my understanding 
that the Radio Construction Account has nearly $50 million in 
unliquidated funds from previous years, at least a portion of which are 
unobligated. If this proves to be a higher priority than others, the 
matter can easily be sorted out in conference.
  The Chairman has questions about whether Radio Free Asia can begin 
and operate effectively with only 10 million dollars. It could 
certainly be more effective if we could fund it at its full 
authorization level of $30 million. I am confident, however, that 
meeting the President's request level of $10 million will be enough to 
begin a high quality radio service. Frankly, I also believe that the 
Senate, which has a more generous 602(b) allocation for this bill, will 
be able to find additional funding.
  This issue is better left to the experts in international 
broadcasting and the authorizers have put a safeguard in the bill that 
authorizes Radio Free Asia to ensure that money is not wasted. Section 
309 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994 
and 1995 says:
  No grant may be awarded to carry out the provisions of this section 
unless the plan submitted by the [Broadcasting] Board [of Governors] 
includes a certification by the board that Radio Free Asia can be 
established and operated within the funding limitations provided for in 
subsection (d)(4) and (d)(5) which is the authorization levels.
  If the Board finds that Radio Free Asia is impossible to implement--
which I would find difficult to believe since two congressionally 
mandated studies in the last 3 years have said it is not only feasible, 
but in the national interest--it may submit recommendations for changes 
in law that would make it feasible. These are ample safeguards to 
ensure that everyone's concerns are addressed.
  Mr. Chairman, the Commission on Broadcasting to the Peoples Republic 
of China said it best when they wrote, ``the fate of America is 
intertwined with the fate of American ideals.'' For individuals around 
the world, knowledge is freedom. The 1.3 billion people in the counties 
to be served by Radio Free Asia have no freedom. With a very small 
investment in this tremendously cost-effective program, we can give 
them the key.
  I urge members to vote for this amendment.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to give just a few reasons why I am 
opposed to this amendment. It is not that it is not an interesting 
subject or even a good idea.
  The administration is making a very strong effort now to reorganize 
Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe and move the organization out of 
Munich.
  It will cost at least $30 million to establish a Radio Free Asia. it 
may very well be, and we do not know yet, that this Radio Free Asia 
could be established as a part of the Voice of America. Perhaps some of 
the equipment could be used jointly with VOA. We do not know yet. But 
we do know that it would probably cost $30 million to establish a 
separate Radio Free Asia.
  Just look at what is happening with Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe 
in Europe, that is $210 million now, and so we can expect that Radio 
Free Asia would probably eventually cost in the area of $150 million to 
$200 million to operate. That means another $150 million to $200 
million will have to come out of State Department and other USIA funds 
in future years--before we have even reorganized the Radios.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is premature. It is not that we may not 
need or want to do something like this in perhaps within the year, but 
it is premature to do it in this bill. To take $10 million now as a 
downpayment I think would be a bad mistake.
  I hope we vote this amendment down today. When we vote no on this, we 
are not necessarily voting against Radio Free Asia. Instead we are 
saying that today is the wrong time to do it. We do not have the 
information we need today, and we may be getting ourselves into a big 
expense that could perhaps be handled in a much more efficient and less 
expensive way.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Bentley], the cosponsor of the amendment.
  (Mrs. BENTLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham] should be added to the group that the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] read earlier.
  Mr. Chairman, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the spread 
of democratic ideas serves the interests of the United States because 
democracies are far less prone to launch wars of aggression. As a prime 
vehicle for the dissemination of democratic ideas, international radio 
broadcasting is a cost-efficient, nonviolent means of communication 
that forms an essential part of our overall program of diplomacy.
  As most Members know, the Congress appropriates funds for two 
separate and distinct radio broadcast services--the first of which is 
the Voice of America, the official U.S. Government broadcast service. 
The second broadcast service, operated by the quasi-independent Board 
for International Broadcasting, is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty--
which for over 40 years broadcast into Eastern Europe and the former 
Soviet Union. The success of both broadcast services is well documented 
in bringing hard news and commentary to hundreds of millions of people 
whose only other information was that spoon-fed to them by their 
governments. Our commitment to radio broadcasting helped break that 
stranglehold--and helped to bring down the Iron Curtain.
  It is unfortunate that, contrary to our long-standing policy of 
maintaining two separate broadcast services to Eastern Europe and the 
former Soviet Union, we have yet to make a parallel commitment to 
promoting democracy in Asia. Throughout much of Asia, well over 1 
billion people are routinely denied access to accurate, timely 
information by their governments.
  One glaring recent example of this occurred on the eve of the 
anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. In this case, the 
Government of the People's Republic of China issued the demand that 
hotels temporarily shut off access to CNN programing because of concern 
about the impact of Tiananmen-related stories. Such blatant efforts to 
deny essential domestic and international news to their publics are the 
rule rather than the exception throughout much of Asia.
  In 1992, then-Governor Clinton spoke in favor of a Radio Free Asia 
broadcast service in a speech delivered at Georgetown University. 
President Clinton included funds for Radio Free Asia in his fiscal year 
1994 and 1995 budget submissions to the Congress. Three weeks ago, at a 
press conference dealing with MFN and China, the President spoke of 
increased Radio Free Asia broadcasts. The trouble is--there are no 
Radio Free Asia broadcasts to increase. There is no Radio Free Asia--
and there is no money in this bill to create it. What we do have, is 
requests for more studies--which is exactly what we don't need.
  Since my colleague John Porter and I first introduced Radio Free Asia 
legislation back in 1990, we've had 4-years worth of studies. In 1991, 
the President's Task Force on U.S. Government International 
Broadcasting issued a lengthy report, effectively endorsing Radio Free 
Asia. In 1992, the Commission on Broadcasting to Asia followed suit. 
The fiscal year 1995 State Department authorization bill which this 
body passed in April, authorized a Radio Free Asia broadcast service. 
We have had the studies, now it is time for action because we are 
losing valuable time in an increasingly unstable Asia. We should have 
had this service up and running several years ago. While the 
consequences of our failure to do so have yet to be fully realized, the 
writing is on the wall.

  In Cambodia, 15 months after historic elections were held, the 
Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge are again on the offensive--waging war over 
the airwaves as well as on the ground. Members interested in seeing the 
daily regimen of inflammatory news broadcasts by Pol Pot's forces, need 
only refer to the Foreign Broadcast Information Service reports that 
many of our offices receive on a daily basis. The growing political 
chaos, fueled by Khmer Rouge broadcasts should be of serious concern to 
all who remember what happened inside Cambodia from 1975-1978. Radio 
Free Asia can play a positive role in helping Cambodia consolidate its 
tentative move toward democracy which is in danger of being suppressed 
again by the murderous Khmer Rouge.
  In Vietnam, a country of 70 million people, the VOA broadcasts 2\1/2\ 
hours a day--certainly not enough for a country of such pivotal 
regional importance. In Vietnam, economic liberalization has not 
necessarily been followed by political liberalization. Yet, although 
the Vietnamese Government continues to prohibit free expression, there 
has been a range of nascent, democratic activities that must be 
nourished through access to a Radio Free Asia. Although the Congress 
has lifted economic sanctions, we must not falsely assume that trade, 
by itself, will foster democracy. While the VOA gives these countries a 
window to world events, a Radio Free Asia will address a full and fair 
colloquy of events of the day within each country and culture.
  Then, there is the case of North Korea, a closed, militaristic 
society that has the potential to foment major instability throughout 
the region. In a closed society such as North Korea, international 
radio broadcasting is extremely important for another key reason--
communication with the ruling elite. Contrary to the belief that North 
Koreas leaders are of only one mind, we know from past events that 
there are moderate as well as hard-line factions. Make no mistake about 
it, members of the ruling elite can and do listen to international 
radio broadcasts--perhaps behind closed doors--but listening 
nonetheless.
  Kim Il-song will not live forever, and the succession is not yet 
clear. Through Radio Free Asia, we can implant the notion that a 
peaceful future is possible, with as much as the North Korean elite as 
can be reached. Must we wait for the outbreak of a second war on the 
Korean Peninsula before recognizing the need for a Radio Free Asia?
  Radio Free Asia is an idea whose time has come. There is a vital need 
for Radio Free Asia to help the peoples of the Communist countries in 
Asia realize their own path to freedom. For these countries, we can 
highlight the successful experiences of Eastern Europe and the Soviet 
Union while emphasizing how countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, and 
Thailand have found their own path to greater economic and political 
freedom.
  And let us be clear that we do not want Radio Free Asia to offend our 
friends in the region by fomenting destabilization in countries that 
are not as democratic as some would like. Radio Free Asia should not 
become a symbol of arrogance, nor should Radio Free Asia be sentenced 
to death by a thousand studies, which, unless we act today, is a 
distinct possibility. A vote in favor of our amendment is a vote in 
favor of democracy building throughout much of Asia. Radio Free Europe 
helped to bring down the Iron Curtain. Radio Free Asia can help bring 
down the Bamboo Curtain.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Porter amendment, strong 
opposition.
  I would like to point out to the body that this issue is not one of 
first impression, so to speak, to the subcommittee or to the full 
committee. In the first instance, the subcommittee considered very 
carefully the administration's request which was $10 million for Radio 
Free Asia, and rejected it.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason for rejecting the request is not that we are 
opposed to Radio Free Asia or to the purposes for which Radio Free Asia 
is proposed. The reason for our opposition is fiscal responsibility. 
This program is definitely well-intentioned, and there is obviously a 
need for such communication to Asia, but the program has just recently 
been authorized, and there has been no assessment of its cost.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been no implementation plan developed yet, so 
we are being asked to fund this program purely on good faith.
  We think, frankly, that it is irresponsible to do that. I do not 
think there is a member on the subcommittee, though I do not want to 
speak for them, who is opposed to Radio Free Asia per se. But we have 
had experience with unlimited funding of radio broadcast, and some of 
these experiences have been a bit unpleasant. Now we have to address 
them.
  Therefore, we think it is crucially important that before we consider 
funding a program, we have an implementation plan so that we can assess 
the costs associated with this worthy and noble proposal. We do not 
have that, Mr. Chairman. We have no idea how the program would be 
implemented. We have no idea what the infrastructure needs are, and to 
what extent the infrastructure requirements can be shared with Voice of 
America facilities already in the area. We have no idea what the start-
up costs are going to be.
  Very importantly, Mr. Chairman, we do not know what this will 
ultimately cost. We have had a request of $10 million from the 
administration. We have an authorization of $30 million.
  The gentleman offered amendments in committee for $22 million and $8 
million, a combination of $30 million, but no one is able to tell us 
how much it will really cost. Are we dealing with a black hole here? 
Does this program cost $30 million a year? Does it cost $30 million to 
start-up? Is it going to cost $30 million next year? Is it going to be 
$50, $100, or $150 million?
  We are not opposed to Radio Free Asia. We are opposed to 
appropriating money for a program for which we have seen no 
implementation plan.
  We have had a number of discussions with the gentleman, and other 
distinguished Members who are interested in Radio Free Asia, about 
reviewing this request again when an implementation plan is made 
available to us. Even if it is between now and conference, we are 
willing to look at such a proposal so that we can begin to assess the 
costs. If we had that assessment between now and conference, I think 
the members of my subcommittee would be interested in looking at it to 
seek what we could do to support the program.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is irresponsible to act without an 
implementation plan. We have had many Members talk about fiscal 
conservatism and fiscal responsibility. We must question the request in 
the gentleman's amendment based upon the fact that we have not seen a 
program for implementation.
  Therefore, we have no information on the scope either of the 
implementation or of the future operating funds.
  So I encourage the body on a stand of fiscal responsibility to oppose 
this amendment. Give us a chance to look at an implementation plan and 
consider the funding based upon tangible material.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the ranking member on the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Porter/
Bentley amendment to fund Radio Free Asia and I commend Mr. Porter and 
Mrs. Bentley for their diligent efforts on this measure. I have 
endorsed this concept for a long time, and now more than ever, the 
people living in the closed Asian societies of China, Laos, Burma, 
North Korea, and Vietnam should have access to independent news 
sources. Increased international broadcasting provides valuable 
information on events in those countries and around the world.
  Radio Free Asia was established in the recently passed State 
Department Authorization Act--Public Law 103-236. Mr. Porter and Mrs. 
Bentley's amendment seeks to fund a program already approved by 
Congress.
  China is a major target for these broadcasts. We gained few 
concessions from the Chinese in return for granting of most-favored-
nation status. Yet, it was hoped that the administration would at least 
succeed in putting a stop to the deliberate jamming by the Chinese of 
Voice of America broadcasts. Discussions were abruptly ended because 
the Chinese were unhappy with White House statements on broadcasting to 
Asia. Once again, aggressive actions by the Chinese Government are 
taken at the cost of the basic civil liberties of their people.
  The continued jamming of VOA re-enforces the reasons to fund 
additional broadcasting as a wedge to help open this society.
  Furthermore, we cannot rely on the commercial market to provide the 
vital alternative to controlled state news. Recent articles indicate 
Rupert Murdoch, owner of STAR-TV in Hong Kong has dropped the BBC World 
News Service from his network to placate Beijing. STAR-TV had been 
retransmitting the BBC service to about 1.8 million Chinese households.
  Information can be a powerful motivator, and broadcasting is a 
valuable tool as our experience with Radio Free Europe and Radio 
Liberty has proven.
  A compelling reason for Radio Free Asia is that it provides an 
alternative to government-controlled media. State managed news means 
censorship, and precludes opportunities for thought-provoking 
commentary and discussion that may present views contrary to the 
government.
  Even though satellite technology has vastly increased the 
availability of Western news around the world, proper equipment is 
required to receive these programs.
  The Chinese have prohibited satellite dishes specifically to reduce 
access to Western media.
  Aggressive radio broadcasting is an attempt to fill the information 
vacuum imposed by these countries. Radio broadcasts can be tailored to 
meet the language and programming needs of the country.
  The value of uncensored news and commentary is unquestioned--one only 
need look at the success of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty and its 
impact on Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
  I commend my colleagues for their efforts to provide funding for this 
program and strongly support increased broadcasting to the Asian 
region.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago Mr. Clinton renewed the most-favored-
nation trade status for the People's Republic of China. To our shock 
and dismay, Mr. Clinton flipflopped on his own human rights policy when 
he delinked trade with China from human rights in China. Mr. Chairman, 
as a result, millions of Chinese, victims of the ongoing and, in some 
areas, increasing repression and persecution have been betrayed. The 
President broke his word and, as a direct consequence, millions of 
Chinese will suffer and be victimized because he has chosen to coddle 
the Beijing dictatorship.
  That having been said, in announcing his decision, Mr. Clinton also 
said that his administration would pursue ``a new and vigorous American 
program to support those in China working to advance the cause of human 
rights and democracy.'' He went on to say that ``this program will 
include increased broadcasts for Radio Free Asia and the Voice of 
America.'' This increase in broadcasting was the first point he 
mentioned in his renewed human rights activity in China.
  This commitment was echoed by Secretary of State Warren Christopher 
and Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord. Both of them said that 
the administration would move to step up the use of VOA and inaugurate 
Radio Free Asia.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been a strong supporter of Radio Free Asia for 
years. When I testified before the Commission on Broadcasting to the 
People's Republic of China in 1992 I testified that the Chinese 
Government maintains one of the world's most effective monopolies on 
information. Mr. Chairman little has changed since then. The Chinese 
Government continues to deny the Chinese people knowledge of conditions 
in their own country. China faces serious environmental challenges; 
there are important policy choices on economic and regional development 
to be made; the Chinese people have a right to know the status of human 
rights in their country deplorable as it may be and China's citizens 
would benefit from an understanding of how policies are made, and who 
makes them. Instead of addressing these important matters, the official 
Chinese media highlight endless hosannas on achievement of production 
quotas, audiences for admiring foreign visitors, study of the latest 
party documents, exemplars of socialist rectitude, and the achievements 
of the revolution. They also present distortions of the United States, 
human rights, and the spirit of democratic capitalism.
  The control of newspapers, magazines, radio and television by the 
Communist Party continues to deny the Chinese people the truth about 
their own country and the world.
  In 1991, a President's task force on U.S. Government international 
broadcasting endorsed Radio Free Asia. In 1992 a congressional 
commission on broadcasting to the People's Republic of China 
recommended establishing a new service to act independently from VOA. 
1993 has been reported by human rights organizations as one of the 
worst years for human rights in China. Given the deterioration of human 
rights in China over the past year which include the trials and 
detentions of journalists, the promulgation of new and more restrictive 
laws on religion, the continued and increasing use of forced abortion 
to enforce their draconian population control policies, the continued 
use of prison labor, and reports on the trafficking of prisoner's body 
parts, the need for a Radio Free Asia is greater now than it was when 
in years past.
  If we want to know how effect programs such as a Radio Free Asia 
could be, we need only remind ourselves about the role Radio Free 
Europe/Radio Liberty played in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet 
Union. Leaders of the new democracies have testified to the power of 
these broadcasts. When asked if the broadcasts were important to the 
democratic movement in Poland, President Lech Walesa responded ``Would 
there be Earth without the Sun?'' During the days and nights of the 
August 1991 coup attempt in Moscow, Voice of America, Radio Free 
Europe/Radio Liberty and the BBC were the lifelines of the people at 
the barricades.
  Radio Free Asia could have the same powerful effect in Asia as RFE/RL 
had in Eastern Europe. An investment in RFA is an investment in the 
interests and security of the United States. But this investment must 
be substantial, not a token gesture.
  I believe that extending MFN to China and disregarding the atrocious 
human rights record of the past year was wrong. Funding RFA is one step 
that we can take in righting that wrong. If we fail to fund RFA or if 
we fail to fund it adequately, if we fail to give it the opportunity to 
even get off the ground, we are only continuing a pattern of breaking 
our promises and commitments. We cannot continue turning our backs on 
the people of China. At some point we must stop coddling dictators and 
stand up for the victims of repression and persecution.
  If RFA is left unfunded or is underfunded, it takes away one of the 
proposed cornerstones of our already watered down human rights policy 
toward China.
  Mr. Chairman, in the days of the Ching dynasty, the feet of young 
girls were wrapped in tightly drawn cloth. As these women grew into 
maturity, the bindings noosed their feet, crushing the delicate bones 
under the pressure and hobbled these women for life. These footbindings 
sentenced these women to stunted lives that could only find happiness 
within the approved ambit and patriarchy of their homes. The Communist 
Party today seeks to bind the minds of its citizens. The cords of 
China's media monopoly crush the human aspiration and creativity as 
effectively as the bindings crushed the feet of Chinese women. 
Broadcasts, provided by our Nation, can help loosen these bonds.
  Mr. Chairman, an investment in Radio Free Asia is a wise investment 
for America's future, and for the pursuit of democracy and human rights 
not only in China but in all of Asia. I support this amendment and I 
urge my Colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Porter-Bentley 
amendment and in appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for the hard work in 
putting together fiscal year 1995 Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations bill. I understand the competition for funds in this 
legislation, and with that full appreciation I come to the floor to 
support the transfer of funds to Radio Free Asia, as presented in the 
Porter-Bentley amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, others of our colleagues have pointed out the need for 
us to have independent surrogate broadcasting into China. Others have 
stated that this legislation, this issue of Radio Free Asia, was 
endorsed by President Bush's task force on U.S. Government 
international broadcasting in 1991. In 1992 it was endorsed by the 
Congressional Commission on Broadcasting to the People's Republic of 
China, which recommended the establishment of a new broadcast service. 
It was authorized in the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman's, 
legislation and in addition to that President Clinton included a $10 
million request for Radio Free Asia in his fiscal year 1995 budget 
request. Those of us who have been working on this issue for many years 
have gone by the book. We have waited for the commissions to speak, the 
legislation has been authorized, and it was in the President's budget, 
and for that reason I was disappointed that it did not appear in the 
subcommittee on Appropriations' markup for Radio Free Asia.
  Mr. Chairman, the Chinese dissident movement is reeling from a recent 
decision by President Clinton to renew MFN without any tangible 
improvement in human rights in China. I would like to read part of a 
letter from the National Council on Chinese Affairs.

       Radio Free Asia is the best way that the U.S. Can help to 
     break the Chinese Government's news embargo It can establish 
     its credibility among Chinese people by its independence and 
     diverse expertise other than from the U.S. Government. It can 
     effectively penetrate into the Chinese society and let people 
     know constantly what is happening around the country and 
     around the world.

  As you know, Mr. Chairman, this broadcasting will go into other 
closed societies as well.
  Our colleague, Mr. Smith, mentioned that Voice of America could 
perhaps do this. It cannot. We need Radio Free Asia as an independent 
surrogate to give the message of freedom into China.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would say I think Chairman Mollohan's 
statement that he would like to see an implementation plan is a 
perfectly legitimate statement and the gentleman should have an 
implementation plan. We are asking our colleagues today to vote to let 
us move Radio Free Asia along.
  As I said, Mr. Chairman, we have adhered to and abided by the 
commission report, getting our authorization, having the President's 
1995 budget include this request if we do not pass this amendment 
today, we will be sending out a very bad message to the world. We will 
be saying that in spite of President Clinton's saying that this was one 
of the cornerstones of his Asia policy to have Radio Free Asia, that 
the Congress of the United States is rejecting the funding even though 
it is a modest amount of funding for Radio Free Asia.
  This amendment is budget-neutral, and this amendment is one that 
deserves the support of our colleagues.
  Recent newspaper reports have said because of or coinciding with the 
succession struggle in China, that a bamboo curtain in surrounding that 
succession struggle. On a day-to-day basis reporters are thrown in 
jail, and some of my colleagues, I believe, Mr. Gilman, referenced the 
chilling effect that that Chinese policy has even in Hong Kong, where 
there is self-censorship of the press as well as discontinuation of 
free broadcasting into China.
  So, in answer to my colleague, Mr. Smith, saying it could possibly be 
done by Voice of America, this is different. We had Voice of America 
when the Iron Curtain was down in Europe, and we had Radio Free Europe 
and Radio Liberty as well. Please let us recognize the distinction.
  Please recognize what the need is for Radio Free Asia.
  Please let us not send the wrong message that the United States does 
not want to send a message of freedom to Asia as it did to Europe; 
please support the Porter-Bentley amendment.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                        National Council on Chinese Affairs [NCCA]
                                   Washington, DC., June 27, 1994.

 Vote ``Yes'' For Porter Amendment on H.R. 4603 to Support Radio Free 
                                  Asia

       Dear Representatives: The Chinese democracy movement 
     urgently ask you to support the Porter amendment for the 
     Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations for the FY95 (HR4603). 
     This amendment will be voted on this afternoon which will 
     reserve the funding for Radio Free Asia.
       Chinese government is the only regime in the remaining 
     communist bloc. After the Tiananmen massacre, the Chinese 
     Communist Party tightened its control over the media and 
     toughened its news embargo, making it more difficult than 
     ever for ordinary Chinese people to understand the true 
     situation in the world and other parts of the country. This 
     information embargo is the only effective tool for the 
     Chinese government to conduct its usual propaganda campaign 
     and maintain its political power.
       Radio Free Asia is the best way that the U.S. can help to 
     break the Chinese government's news embargo. It can establish 
     its credibility among Chinese people by its independence and 
     diverse expertise other than from the U.S. government. It can 
     effectively penetrate into the Chinese society and let people 
     know constantly what is happening around the country and 
     around the world. It is also the most economical way to 
     promote democracy and freedom in China as well as in other 
     remaining communist countries in Asia such as North Korea and 
     Vietnam.
       The U.S. has an important role to play in the next few 
     years which are critical for China. The Chinese government 
     will be experiencing a succession struggle which has the 
     potential to change the face of China forever. The Chinese 
     people look upon America as a great nation and have been 
     inspired by America's founding values and its commitment to 
     freedom and democracy worldwide. The U.S. Congress has been 
     instrumental in the last five years to insist on linkage 
     between MFN and human rights conditions. Now more than ever, 
     we need your support for this very important and critical 
     endeavor for the cause of human rights and democracy in 
     China.
           Sincerely,
                                              Haiching Zhao, Ph.D.
                                                   President/NCAA.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished 
member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  First, I think it should be stated clearly for the record that all of 
us engaged in this debate want the same objective, and that is for 
individual freedoms to be enhanced and secured for the people of China, 
and in fact for the people throughout Asia.

                              {time}  1920

  That is our objective, and we are only debating what is the best 
means of achieving that objective. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who we just heard from has 
been working for many years on that objective, and we strongly support 
what she wants to achieve, as well as the author of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  I just spoke to someone who has been working for most of their career 
to advance the cause of individual freedoms for people in Asia. He knew 
that I got somebody out of China after the Tiananmen Square massacre 
because I feared for his life given the repressive tactics of the 
Chinese Government. But it was particularly telling to me when he said, 
``You know, it breaks my heart that money that is so scarce for needs 
that are so great will be wasted through duplication.''
  It is no one's fault, but the reality is we do not have enough money 
to start up Radio Free Asia. The committee heard from expert witnesses 
that said that it will cost nearly a $100 million to set up the 
infrastructure to make this dream of Radio Free Asia work effectively. 
There is a consultant's report that substantiates that conclusion, and 
so the money we are talking about that will be coming from a program 
account that has already been cut below last year's level, that money 
will be used for startup costs for leasing physical facilities, for 
administrative costs, undoubtedly a lot for consultants, very little 
for actual broadcasting, while at the same time the Voice of America 
has a facility in Hong Kong, they have a bureau in Beijing, they just 
developed a one milliwatt transmitter in the Philippines, they have a 
new facility in Thailand, they are leasing facilities in the Russian 
Far East, they have greatly strengthened the coverage of Chinese 
affairs, particularly, and, in fact, they contributed to the desire on 
the part of so many people, particularly young people, to overthrow the 
repression of the Chinese Government. Their coverage of the most-
favored-nation status debate in the House of Representatives; anyone 
who listened to that knows it was fair. It was just the kind of 
broadcasting that everyone involved in this debate wants to induce, and 
in fact the letters that came into the Voice of America, if anything 
the young people in China asked why they have to be so critical of the 
Chinese Government. We know that Radio Free Asia is going to be very 
critical of the Chinese Government, but that is because the House of 
Representatives and, I think, the American people will continue to be 
critical of the Chinese Government until the Chinese people have more 
freedom than they currently have today.
  What we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, is the pragmatic economics 
of very limited money that have to be focused, targeted, on whatever is 
going to work, that is going to bring the most effective services to 
the most people. Voice of America is organized to do that. There is a 
board of governors, they call it the BBG, that is just being set up to 
ensure that there is no manipulation.
  I would only suggest to my colleagues to look at Radio Free Europe 
and Radio Liberty. We are spending over $256 million for those 
programs. We are consolidated. We are now cutting back on them. It is 
very difficult to cut back. Let us use the little money we have in the 
most effective way possible.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues:

       When you went to eastern Europe, nobody said Voice of 
     America saved eastern Europe. They said that Radio Free 
     Europe helped save eastern Europe. I spoke to so many 
     Romanians who said when they would listen to the radio and 
     hear what went on on Radio Free Europe, that is what made the 
     difference. They never said Voice of America made the 
     difference. It was Radio Free Europe.
       Secondly, China. One-fifth of the world's population is in 
     China. This Congress has debated China for a long time. You 
     are not going to deal with China.
       Vietnam. Thousands of American men and women died in 
     Vietnam, and we are not willing to put up $10 million to deal 
     with the issue.
       And Korea. You can't pick up a paper any day without seeing 
     stories of Korea, and now we are not willing to deal with 
     this issue with regard to Korea.

  Mr. Speaker and Members, I strongly support the Porter-Bentley 
amendment. It is good to push the democratic ideas in China, in Vietnam 
and in North Korea. To turn this down would be that we would be telling 
the people of China that we have basically forgotten about them. A good 
vote for democracy is a good vote for the Porter-Bentley amendment, and 
I urge Members on both sides of the aisle that this ought not be a 
partisan issue because the Clinton administration, the Clinton 
administration, the Clinton administration supports the Porter-Bentley 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley] and the others 
who have proposed this money for Radio Free Asia because I think most, 
if not all of us, sympathize with the concept, and the idea, and the 
need for a Radio Free Asia just as we solve the tremendous success of 
Radio Free Europe and Free Liberty, and we heard Lech Walesa, and 
Vaclav Havel and others in what is now free eastern Europe say publicly 
that the reason for that was Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty. So, Mr. 
Chairman, we know the effectiveness of the surrogate radio broadcasting 
operations.
  The problem with this proposition at this very minute is, as the 
chairman of our subcommittee said, we do not have the money. We tried 
to find it. But we were confronted, Mr. Chairman, by the Congress' 
authorization act in the State Department that mandated, that made us, 
put the only money we had, or the first money we had, into the 
consolidation of the existing surrogate broadcasting services, Radio 
Free Europe, Radio Liberty. We do not have a choice.
  This body told the appropriating committee in the authorization act, 
``You have got to put the first money you find toward consolidating 
these operations,'' and we were scrimping to find money for that when 
we were asked to fund a whole new surrogate broadcasting into Asia, and 
much as, perhaps, we all agree, and I certainly do, with the idea, we 
just simply could not find the money.
  This amendment would cut the existing radio construction account for 
USIA broadcasting by 12 percent, and, if that takes place, we are going 
to have to delay completion of projects already under way at two new 
facilities serving Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia where radio 
towers are now being constructed. We would have to completely stop that 
and shift the moneys to a whole new operation, and it would not be 
enough to get it under way.
  What the chairman has requested of those who are interested in Radio 
Free Asia to do is to give us just a few weeks and see what happens 
when we go to conference with the Senate; and, No. 2, to give us time 
to get some planning from USIA and from the various players here 
involved so that we know what we are dealing with.

                              {time}  1930

  We have not yet been given a game plan, a spending plan, if you will, 
for Radio Free Asia. It is sort of an open-ended process at this time. 
And we simply cannot plan that way, given the mandates we are under 
from the Congress to consolidate broadcasting of the existing surrogate 
stations. No. 2, these ongoing projects we would have to completely 
stop and perhaps nullify the contracts somehow and incur some expenses 
there.
  So I would hope that we would put off this amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
until we have time in 6 weeks or so to see where we are and what the 
actual planning requests are of us for Radio Free Asia. I certainly 
sympathize and support the concept and pledge to help find the money 
for it, but we have to work within very tight constraints in this 
operation right now. I hope we could put this off.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Porter-Bentley 
amendment. I do not think there is any question about what Radio Free 
Europe, Cuba, or Asia would do, and I have listened to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]. But we nearly gave $1 billion 
over a 5-year period for the National Endowment for the Arts, but yet 
we are having trouble finding money for freedom and truth in countries 
that have been denied that information before.
  I think we ought to call it ``Truth or Consequences'' and look at the 
consequences if they do not.
  I would like to commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] 
for her fight on human rights, especially with China. But if you go 
through China and see why that 5,000-year-old dog is changing, it is 
because information is becoming available to the people of China, and 
that is important.
  What a difference this amendment will make. What a difference to 
hundreds of thousands of people that have been denied that type of 
information.
  Let us make their day. Let us make their life, Mr. Chairman. Let us 
support this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in continuing opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that the committee is not opposed 
to a Radio Free Asia for the purpose of carrying out the important 
communication requirements in that area of the world. Indeed, what we 
are trying to do is to review each of the subject categories in this 
account: funding for VOA, consolidations, and creation of a new board, 
to effect efficiencies in this whole range of initiatives. We are 
trying to support these initiatives in order to bring fiscal 
responsibility to our broadcasting efforts. We do not want to diminish 
the effectiveness of these programs. And once the committee receives an 
implementation plan for Radio Free Asia, we may be very receptive to 
funding that implementation plan.
  At this point we do not know what it is going to look like. In a 
letter to me written June 3 from Mr. Duffy, Director of the U.S. 
Information Agency, he says, in part, that the newly authorized 
Broadcasting Board of Governors, which should be appointed soon, will 
be in a position later this year to review all broadcasting options and 
recommend appropriate fund shifts within broadcasting resources to meet 
primary requirements, including Radio Free Asia.
  We simply want to see that documentation. We want to be able to apply 
the millions of dollars that this undertaking is going to require in 
the most efficient, effective way.
  I urge, again, opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield time to a distinguished member of 
our subcommittee who has worked extremely hard in this area last year, 
looking critically at the various accounts under our jurisdiction. He 
has become a very informed gentleman in this area, and I know the body 
will remember his efforts with regard to Radio and TV Marti last year.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to pose a question, because one of 
the previous speakers made the point that this amendment had the 
support of the administration. I am wondering what the chairman's 
understanding is on that point.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge that the 
administration is supporting this amendment, and, indeed, if we rely 
upon Mr. Duffy's representation in this letter, the parts I did not 
read, he does not support the amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, that was my understanding as well. As many 
of the speakers this evening on this issue have pointed out, we really 
do not have a fundamental disagreement about ends. It is a disagreement 
about means. In the committee's proposal, we are increasing by $3 
million moneys for broadcasting to Asia, which will be no doubt used in 
large part to deal with precisely the target countries that are the 
subject of the gentleman's amendment.
  There is no difference of opinion about the fundamental objective of 
a more robust broadcasting program to the countries of Asia. But we 
have a very serious problem here with respect to the costs versus the 
benefits of this particular approach.
  The costs, as have been pointed out, involve a hobbling of the Voice 
of America's radio construction account, which was already reduced by a 
quarter below the administration's request. And ironically, if we were 
to pass this amendment, we would be debilitating the capabilities of 
VOA to get to many of the same audiences that would be the subject of 
additional broadcasts through a Radio Free Asia, those in South Asia at 
least, but also hurting our capabilities in Africa and the Middle East. 
These are vital audiences for us to reach, too.
  So while laudable in its objectives, I think this is the wrong way to 
proceed, and urge the defeat of the Porter-Bentley amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me just listening that this is 
somewhat of a turf fight between the VOA and Radio Free Asia, and we 
need both. There ought to be a way to have both. The Voice of America 
has one mission, which is to tell the world about America. Radio Free 
Asia has another mission, which is to tell the people of China and 
North Korea and Asia what is going on in their country, what they may 
never know from a perspective of democracy and freedom.
  They are both indispensable if we are going to make progress in 
democracy. We are talking about human rights in China. How better to 
ameliorate that situation than through engagement, and how better to 
engage them, not only with trade, MFN, if that is the choice of this 
Congress and this President, but to communicate, to evangelize, to let 
them know what democracy means and how it can work in their great 
country.
  I think we need both the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. I am 
sure that the money will be spent wisely and well. If it is not, I am 
sure the oversight by this great subcommittee will be most effective.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Bentley-Porter amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 3 
minutes.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the future of mankind is being written 
in Asia. The economic growth in the Pacific rim represents the 
mainspring of wealth on this planet today. The dynamic forces that are 
at play will have much to do with the kind of world that emerges after 
the cold war era has been long forgotten.
  The small investment in sharing the ideals of freedom is a worthwhile 
investment. During the last four decades, the cold war was won not just 
with force of arms but with ideas. Our broadcast outlets, Radio Liberty 
and Radio Free Europe, became and literally so beacons of hope, 
transmitters of freedom. In China, Burma, Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, and 
Laos, there are those who share our ideals. And they resist the tyranny 
that oppresses them. They do not want us to fight their fight. But our 
support, our broadcasts of truths and our international demands for 
justice, democracy, and human rights make a difference. Our demands, 
our commitment as seen by those people keep alive their spirit, their 
resistance.
  I know when I worked in the White House, there was a man named 
Schransky in prison in the Soviet Union, Natan Schransky. Later he was 
freed from his prison. He came to visit Ronald Reagan. And when he told 
Ronald Reagan, when he met him for the first time, he said, ``Whatever 
you do, do not tone down your speeches. They were smuggled to us in 
little tidbits, little pieces of paper which had quotes from your 
speeches that kept our hope alive in the Gulag.''
  What we say and what we do as free Americans keeps alive the hope of 
freedom of people we will never meet. It is part of our responsibility 
as Americans to keep lit the flame of liberty that will someday in a 
righteous conflagration destroy and burn down the battlements of 
tyranny throughout the world.
  We have lifted the embargo on Communist Vietnam. We have extended 
again most-favored-nation status to the dictatorial regime on mainland 
China. Radio Free Asia is a statement to the oppressed that Americans 
may be trading and making a profit in dealing with people who suffer 
under this regime, but we are on the side of the oppressed. We are not 
on the side of the oppressor.
  This is a time when we need to make that statement. The people in 
Asia need to hear us reaffirm that commitment, and they are listening 
to this debate tonight.
  I say, let us send them a message that we are faithful to the 
principles of our forefathers and foremothers. Let us make them proud. 
Let us keep sending that message, broadcasting it. We here in America 
are for liberty. We are with you, the people of the world who are 
oppressed.
  Vote ``yes'' on Porter-Bentley.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley], the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentlewoman form California 
[Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], all on our side 
who have talked on this amendment, have been consistent fighters for 
human rights. They know the importance of beaming a message of truth 
and freedom to the people of Asia.
  I have to say to the gentleman from Colorado that I talked to the 
people from NSC this afternoon, and my staff, this morning. The 
administration unequivocally supports providing funding to Radio Free 
Asia in the amount of at least $10 million, and the President spoke in 
his remarks on MFN saying that this is a part of the world where we 
will be broadcasting and where he is seeking support. The 
administration supports Radio Free Asia, but, sadly, has provided, once 
again, no guidance as to what account to cut to fund the President's 
$10 million request.
  I would say to the gentleman that each of the people who have spoken 
against this have glossed over the great difference between Voice of 
America and the surrogate radios. They are not the same thing. The 
Voice of America is the official voice of the United States beamed 
about America all across this world, a very, very important 
broadcasting system. It is not surrogate radio. Surrogate radio was 
designed to operate within a country and to beam a message of what is 
happening in that country, in that society and in that society as it 
relates to the rest of the world to the people within that society, 
because information is censored by repressive governments and they do 
not have access to the truth.
  These are quite different things. It is time that we got on with 
bringing Radio Free Asia into being. We have worked for the last 5 
years to do this. It is authorized. The money is available. There is 
ample money in this account that is unobligated.
  I would urge the members to support the Porter-Bentley amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a vital step if we are 
to bring the voice of freedom to those ruled by oppressive regimes in 
Asia. I congratulate the members who have brought it before us.
  The amendment is a very modest investment--$10 million to fund an 
effort that the President has indicated is vital to promote the spread 
of democracy and human rights in Asia. It represents a small step in 
the giant footprints made by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. All 
of us today recognize the huge role their broadcasts made in promoting 
freedom in central and eastern Europe. Radio Free Asia can play the 
same role on another continent equally important to our future.
  This amendment is really about reaching out of those in China, Tibet, 
Burma and elsewhere whose governments try to keep the truth from them. 
With this small investment we can let them know that the world does 
care about their fate. We can bring some portion of freedom to them. We 
can--by sharing the truth with them--help them build a future for 
themselves and their children that is free of tyranny. I urge my 
colleagues to seize this opportunity and support this important 
amendment.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          BROADCASTING TO CUBA

                       RADIO BROADCASTING TO CUBA

       For expenses necessary to enable the United States 
     Information Agency to carry out the Radio Broadcasting to 
     Cuba Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.) (providing for 
     the Radio Marti Program or Cuba Service of the Voice of 
     America) , including the purchase, rent, construction, and 
     improvement of facilities for radio transmission and 
     reception and purchase and installation of necessary 
     equipment for radio transmission and reception as authorized 
     by 22 U.S.C. 1471, $8,625,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized by 22 U.S.C. 1477b(a).


                            EAST-WEST CENTER

       To enable the Director of the United States Information 
     Agency to provide for carrying out the provisions of the 
     Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East 
     and West Act of 1960 (22 U.S.C. 2054-2057), by grant to the 
     Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East 
     and West in the State of Hawaii, $20,500,000: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay 
     any salary, or to enter into any contract providing for the 
     payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     5376.


                           NORTH/SOUTH CENTER

       To enable the Director of the United States Information 
     Agency to provide for carrying out the provisions of the 
     North/South Center Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C. 2075), by grant to 
     an educational institution in Florida known as the North/
     South Center, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                    NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY

       For grants made by the United States Information Agency to 
     the National Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the 
     National Endowment for Democracy Act, $33,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley: Page 93, strike lines 8 
     through 12.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and 
that my time be equally divided between the gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Rogers] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, did the 
gentleman say 10 minutes total?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, that was my request.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, 
I thought the agreement we had was 10 minutes on each side. I had 
wanted a little longer, but I am willing to do 10 minutes on each side 
if the gentleman would be amenable to that.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
does the gentleman think he could not do it in less than 20 minutes? 
Could he do it in 15 minutes?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, that is not much time. We might be able to 
do it in less, but we might not either. It is an important issue.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would agree to 20.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the 
agreement would be that the total amount of debate on this issue would 
last for 20 minutes. Who will control the time on either side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] would control 
10 minutes; the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] 5 minutes, 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 5 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I know that there are a number of Members 
on our side, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and others, who would like to speak. 
I have no problem with that myself. I do not know if anyone else 
objects to that unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley] for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the funding--$33 million--for 
the National Endowment for Democracy.
  Last year, the House witnessed a remarkable lobbying campaign. 
Leading Democrats and Republicans, labor and big business joined 
together to support an obscure cold war holdover called the National 
Endowment for Democracy.
  The Chamber of Commerce went so far as to score support for the NED 
as a vote for business, while the AFL-CIO scored the debate as support 
for labor--all on the same vote.
  I don't think that's ever happened before, and I certainly don't 
expect to see it happen again.
  What does the NED do to receive support from these remarkable 
bedfellows? Simple--it funds them.
  In the last decade, the NED has distributed over $200 million dollars 
to private organizations, including groups affiliated with the 
Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO, and the Chamber of 
Commerce.
  This support partially explains why the NED has such diverse support. 
The other explanation is NED's mission.
  The National Endowment for Democracy was created a decade ago with 
the mission of countering Soviet expansionism by educating foreign 
populations in the art of democracy. It was designed to be private 
entity funded through a combination of public and private funds.
  Supporters of the NED argue that the endowment is uniquely positioned 
to carry out its overall mission of promoting democracy. I expect them 
to characterize this debate in those terms--support NED and you are a 
friend of democracy.
  I disagree with that assessment. This is not a debate about 
democracy. Rather, it is a debate over the wisdom of giving quasi-
private groups the authority and the funding to conduct their own 
independent foreign policy. It is a debate about accountibility.
  Let me list some of my concerns.
  First, there is no private in the public-private partnership. 95 
percent of the NED's funding comes from the Federal Government, while 
the remaining 5 percent is spent on efforts unrelated to the NED. In 
other words, the NED is wholly funded by Uncle Sam.
  This dearth of private funding is not from lack of trying. Some 
groups have made an effort to raise private funds--they just haven't 
been successful. This raises a red flag in my mind. If the NED is a 
worthwhile program, why does it not receive any private support?
  Second, the bipartisan nature of NED is better described as 
multipartisan. Each recipient group--Republican, Democrat, labor, 
business--pushes its own agenda. Needless to say, these agendas don't 
always agree with one another.
  Nor do they always comport with official U.S. policy. In the past, 
NED funds have reportedly been used to support a military-backed 
candidate in Panama, fund opposition to President Arias in Costa Rica, 
and promote fascists in France.
  These efforts paint an unsavory picture of private groups, funded by 
the American taxpayer, supporting policies not only in conflict with 
each other, but sometimes in conflict with official U.S. policy.
  Third, the NED has mismanaged its--or our--finances. Following its 
near death last year, the NED promised to reform its books and make its 
recipients more accountable. The NED made that same promise, however, 
after audits in 1986, 1991, and 1993 gave the endowment failing grades.
  According to the inspector general's report last March, NED has 
failed to ensure that its grantees could account for their funds and 
failed to ensure that these funds were used in compliance with the 
grant terms.
  NED supporters claim that these criticisms are inevitable in an 
organization designed to break through the redtape of official foreign 
policy. I agree.
  But it is also inevitable that--without adequate oversight--taxpayer 
dollars will be misused.
  That is the core contradiction of NED. Without adequate oversight, 
the taxpayers can't be protected. With adequate oversight, NED's 
mission is hamstrung and useless.
  We have official programs with the same mission as NED's--USIA and 
AID. Their budgets dwarf the NED's. [See Chart] They are accountable to 
the President of the United States, who has the constitutional 
authority to conduct our foreign policy.
  If we increase oversight and control on NED, how will it differ from 
these two programs?
  If we do not, we run a great risk. We have hot-spots all over the 
world--Bosnia, Somolia, China, North Korea. NED has people working in 
many of these locations. Who are they, and in whose interest are they 
working?
  Which brings me to my final point. The cold war is over.
  The explicit purpose of NED was to combat Soviet expansionism. Only 
in a world where the Soviet Union lives and grows do the obvious 
compromises of NED make any sense. Without this counterweight, NED's 
activities smack of the same imperialism the endowment was created to 
combat.
  Make no mistake, NED has had some successes. But I find myself 
wondering how many of these victories for democracy would have taken 
place without NED's assistance.
  I also wonder how many ``successes'' will come back to bite us 5 or 
10 years down the road.
  How many Saddam Hussein's are receiving NED funds? How many spurned 
organizations will come to power with bitter feelings towards NED and 
the United States?
  Foreign policy is a messy business when you have just one State 
Department. How messy is it when we have six or seven?
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have no illusions that our post-cold 
war world is a safe place. The U.S. and its allies need to remain 
vigilant and strong.
  The National Endowment for Democracy, however, has no place in a 
world without the Soviet Union. Soviet expansionism was the only excuse 
for funding the NED. The Soviet Union is gone. It is time for the NED 
to follow.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], and 
would defer to a very distinguished member of this body, the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] has 
distinguished himself. He just recently managed the authorization bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman] to lead off the opposition.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] for his very kind comments, as well as for his work on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill, which reduces last year's level of 
appropriation by $2 million, is conceded by the author of the amendment 
to be eliminating a program that does many good things, but says we 
should eliminate it because of the way it does it, and because the cold 
war is over.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that now more than ever, as in the 
nonpolarized world, the notion of promoting fundamental concepts of 
democracy and doing it in exactly the way that this process sets it 
out, not through a Government program, where very direct U.S. interests 
are promoted and where an agenda is expected, but by people from the 
political parties, from the business community, from organized labor.
  Yes, the AFL-CIO supports this. We can assume it is for some narrow, 
parochial kind of reason. I would suggest to the gentleman who made 
this amendment that it is because everyone would agree that a 
fundamental tenet of freedom and democracy is a free labor movement, 
free to organize, free to bargain collectively, and the fact that labor 
participates in seeking to create that freedom throughout the world is 
a tribute to them, it is a tribute to the work of the National 
Endowment for Democracy, and it would be a terrible, terrible thing to 
cut this very exciting, vibrant program that promotes our most 
fundamental values around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Hefley amendment to strike the $33 million appropriated for the 
National Endowment for Democracy [NED].
  The level of funding in the bill is already $12 million below the 
President's request and $2 million below last year's level.
  There is broad bipartisan consensus that support for Democracy is one 
of the enduring principles in American foreign policy. We manifest that 
support through the National Endowment for Democracy.
  The NED has the support of both parties, of conservatives and 
liberals, and of labor and business, all united to support the enduring 
goal of promoting democracy and political freedom.
  The fall of communism has not created instant democracies. We should 
support the emerging democracies as they develop, by helping them build 
viable political parties, democratic institutions, and stable, 
peaceful, democratic countries.
  It would be foolish to turn our backs on democracy after we worked so 
hard to defeat communism. A few small but wise investments in democracy 
today may help prevent the vast expenditure of defense dollars 
tomorrow.
  For example, the NED has done successful work in Nicaragua, Poland, 
Chile, South Africa, and throughout the former Soviet Union.
  The NED helps the United States export democracy, our most important 
commodity:
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, there is $1.2 billion in this bill for 
peacekeeping measures in support of the United Nations, $33 million for 
the promotion of democracy. This is a very important, meager 
expenditure. I have the highest regard for my colleague, the gentleman 
from Colorado, Mr. Joel Hefley, but I have to say having served on the 
board of the International Republican Institute, we are increasing the 
level of private sector involvement for this organization. We are 
seeing a very important effort here, promoting democracy in parts of 
the world that need it desperately, Russia, the Ukraine, South Africa. 
This is a key national security vote.
  Vote ``no'' on the Hefley amendment, vote in favor of promoting 
democratization worldwide.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in 
strong support of the NED.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and to remind my 
colleagues of the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure, and I am not talking health care. This bill appropriates 
$222 million for new peacekeeping operations, military operations 
designed to restore order after a political system breaks down. We have 
already seen the dangers associated with these operations in Somalia 
and we soon may see them in Haiti. My colleague asks us to cut the $33 
million in funding for NED, a program with a proven track record in 
democracy-building that addresses the root causes of political 
instability so that likelihood of systemic breakdown, and the need for 
peacekeeping is reduced. It makes no sense, as the White House 
contemplates peacekeeping forays in Haiti and elsewhere, to cut the 
very program that offers preventive medicine. I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on the Hefley amendment and to support NED.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad]
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Hefley amendment 
to strike $33 million in funding for the National Endowment for 
Democracy.
  I know that NED has high-profile supporters across the political 
spectrum. But with a $4.4 trillion debt hanging over our heads, this is 
an expenditure we simply can't justify to the folks back home.
  NED is not the public-private partnership it is often touted to be. I 
always thought the term ``partnership'' indicated some kind of equal 
arrangement, but 95 percent of NED's funding comes from the Federal 
Government alone.
  Finally, repeated audits of NED's finances show that its track record 
is one of mismanagement, not cost-efficiency. Once again, the taxpayers 
are not getting the best bang for their buck.
  Last year, the House decisively voted 247 to 172 to end funding for 
the NED. But, as happens all too often around here, $35 million for the 
NED was slipped back into the bill in conference.
  I urge my colleagues to make another stand against wasteful spending. 
let us re-endow American taxpayers with their own money, not send it 
overseas. Let us support the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the funding contained in 
this appropriations bill for the National Endowment for Democracy and 
urge my colleagues to defeat Mr. Hefley's cutting amendment. I commend 
the new subcommittee chairman, Mr. Mollohan, and the ranking member, 
Mr. Rogers, for their leadership in crafting this appropriations bill, 
in particular, for the continued support for a key tool of U.S. foreign 
policy--the National Endowment for Democracy.
  One of the most important foreign policy challenges facing the United 
States today is to assist those countries transitioning to democracy. 
This is a long and difficult process. Many of those countries remain in 
turmoil and will for years to come. But the United States must stay in 
this for the long haul to allow democratic principles take root.
  A return to authoritarian rule threatens our national interest and 
undermines any prospects for a peaceful world order.
  That is why so many of us support NED. We support their programs to 
assist those trying to build democracy in former Soviet Union, and the 
other courageous countries who share our values. It will mean lower 
defense costs, more stable trading partners, fewer refugees who must 
flee tyranny, and a more stable world.
  NED and the four core grantees provide cost effective programs that 
helps people learn how to manage and participate in democratic 
governments. Reliable support provided by NED is fundamental to 
establishing these democratic institutions and traditions.
  Withdrawing from these commitments, and the programs which the 
organization and its grantees are currently running will undermine the 
goals which we all embrace.
  We are reorienting our priorities in the post-cold-war era to support 
emerging democracies and to create politically and economically stable 
countries. NED is our frontline force to carry out these policies.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to reject any effort to cut funding 
for the National Endowment for Democracy.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, 12 years ago, Salvador, Guatemala, 
Nicaragua, and Panama were all dictatorships. I witnessed elections in 
every one of those working with the National Endowment for Democracy. 
This same effort can be made throughout the rest of the world. 
Democracy can advance, but it needs our help.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of NED and in opposition 
to the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Hefley 
amendment.
  We are witness to an unprecedented era of democratization across the 
globe. Happily, in our world today, more people than ever are living in 
free or partly free countries.
  We have seen the dramatic overthrow of communism in East-Central 
Europe. By 1992, the U.S.S.R. no longer existed. And while there are 
serious problems confronting Russia its peoples continue to back 
President Yeltsin's vision of a Russia moving toward market reform and 
privatization. We have seen free elections in Nicaragua, and the 
triumph of the democratic opposition.
  We have seen the bravery of men and women around the world, from 
Chile to China to Cambodia, raising their voices and risking their 
lives for freedom and justice and in some cases to exercise the 
fundamental right to vote for the type of government they choose to 
live under.
  To accept the proposed amendment would destroy an organization that 
has actively and constructively furthered democracy worldwide and 
seriously cripple a major U.S. foreign policy objective to shore up 
democracies worldwide.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to dilute our efforts at helping those 
activists and organization who seek to promote and strengthen 
democratic institutions.
  This is not the time nor the program to scale back our efforts. If 
there is a cost-saving mechanism this is it. This is a small investment 
in people and programs that can yield extraordinary dividends in years 
to come if we but keep the vision within sight. The real fact is that 
we cannot afford the failure of those groups, individuals, and programs 
that NED supports.
  It is in our national interests that democracy be actively promoted 
abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, NED was created by the Congress in 1983. It has the 
support and cooperation of members of both political parties, of 
conservatives and liberals, of business leaders, and labor activists, 
and of thousands of citizens across the globe who are committed to 
democratic development.
  Since its inception, NED has successfully assisted hundreds of 
organizations working for freedom and democracy in dozens of countries 
worldwide.
  During the past year NED has provided assistance in almost 80 
countries--in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. 
It has supported women's leadership conferences, election monitoring 
activities, political party training, programs, grassroots 
participation and technical assistance to local governments, political 
parties, parliaments, businesses, and civic groups. Our support for NED 
has been a small investment that has already delivered a tremendous 
return and promises much more.
  As Cochairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe, I am particularly familiar with NED's work in East-Central 
Europe and in Russia. Nobody needs to be reminded of the sweeping 
changes we have seen in those regions--changes that continue to impress 
and inspire.
  But while communism seemed to collapse overnight, democracy will take 
years to secure. And while NED's assistance has directly contributed to 
the democratic changes that have already taken place in East-Central 
Europe, I want to stress that NED's continuing assistance will be vital 
to ensure that democracy survives.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleagues' concern that NED's funds be 
carefully and comprehensively accounted for and spent wisely. 
Certainly, we all have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars 
are responsibly spent. But killing the endowment is not the solution.
  It will send a terrible signal to the numerous democratic 
organizations that depend on NED for assistance. It will send a 
terrible signal to the brave individuals around the world who rely on 
NED's commitment to democracy. It will send a terrible signal to the 
fledgling democracies at a time when they need our determined support. 
In short, it will be a terrible mistake.
  In my experience, NED has been ready and wiling to work with the 
Congress, not against us. I urge my colleagues to support the cause of 
democracy and vote against the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment to eliminate all, all of the funds, for the 
National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment is a good and 
valuable program worthy of our support.
  Mr. Chairman, a few short months ago I traveled to South Africa. I 
was there just 3 weeks before the historic elections in which majority 
rule was finally won by the people of South Africa. During my stay in 
South Africa I had the opportunity to meet with many groups and 
individuals who were receiving funding through the National Endowment 
for Democracy.
  Among the people I met with were voter education workers, both 
Americans and South Africans, who were teaching people the value of 
democracy, teaching them the importance of voting, teaching them how to 
mark their ballots and cast their vote. These may seem like basic 
things to all of us here in America, but in emerging democracies, these 
are the values we can share and teach. Freedom, democracy, voting 
rights, civil rights; surely, these are things worthy of appropriation.
  Let us invest in democracy, let us invest in freedom, let us defeat 
the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this Government spends over $500 
million a year on voluntary family planning programs overseas, which is 
essentially handing out condoms to poor people; $35 million on 
screwworm research, which has already been eradicated from the United 
States; and $168 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, which 
channels limited tax dollars to ``artists'' who, among other things, 
denigrate religion, and are often so weird that they can't sell their 
works to anyone who has a choice in the matter.
  That's almost three-quarters of a billion dollars of useless 
Government spending, and I could go on, believe me. I have one of the 
highest ratings with the National Taxpayers Union, but we are not 
talking about cutting useless spending. We are talking about cutting a 
program which bolsters the cause of freedom and democracy.
  This is not foreign aid, which I oppose, let's be clear about that. I 
do not support building dams, bridges, and roads overseas, when we are 
cutting essential services to our own people here in America. But, once 
again, NED should not be confused with foreign aid. This is not about 
cutting Government spending. This is about whether or not we are taking 
our commitment to democracy, freedom, and human rights seriously. 
Whether those who long for freedom can look to us, not for a handout, 
but for leadership, for a commitment.
  This is the time to consolidate our victory during the cold war. A 
time in history when the potential for the expansion of freedom and 
democracy are at their highest. This is a time of dramatic change. New 
relationships and new governments are being formed across the globe. To 
shrink from this titanic battle of ideas is irresponsible. This time 
will pass us by, an opportunity to build a better world, a freer world 
will be lost, if we disengage.
  If we vote to kill NED today, and tomorrow's world turns out to be 
haunted by despots and dictators, we will have only ourselves to blame. 
If our security is threatened by a world awash in tyranny, we can look 
to our own timidity and retrenchment.
  This is exactly the time for vigorous support of democracy-building 
programs, and the efforts of the National Endowment for Democracy. If 
you want to cut spending, let's get the A-to-Z plan out here on the 
floor.
  Ronald Reagan was NED's first advocate. He knew that NED would be 
symbolic of our values, of what we really stand for. He knew that these 
values would ultimately win the cold war. With the cold war won, it 
falls to us to continue the epic struggle for freedom.
  NED is America's way to hold up our end of the bargain after having 
encouraged people worldwide to embrace democracy. NED allows America to 
be on the side of people who have, often times, followed the American 
example and put their lives on the line for freedom. If they are free, 
they can solve their own problems without U.S. largess.
  Mr. Chairman, we should be willing to support this puny commitment. 
Vote ``no'' on the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter]
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the cold war, we have an historic 
opportunity to promote our Nation's values of human rights, rule of 
law, democracy, and free markets. I would be a tremendous disservice to 
our children and future generations if we were to squander this 
opportunity by withdrawing inward.
  The National Endowment for Democracy is important in our effort to 
cultivate the fruits of the cold war. We provide funding to NED because 
it is in our Nation's best interest. It is to our strategic interest to 
have other democratic governments around the world. I cannot think of a 
time the United States has been at war with another democracy. It is to 
our economic interest to have new markets for our goods and strong 
trading partners to provide our markets with goods. And it is in our 
moral, human interest to promote human rights and rule of law to people 
in the far corners of the globe. Human rights are indivisible. Whenever 
anyone's human rights are violated, it is a threat to every one of us.
  NED promotes U.S. interests in an incredibly cost effective way, too. 
In the area of human rights, for example, NED sponsors over 50 small 
human rights organizations in some of the most vicious dictatorships, 
including China, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam, Zaire, Liberia, Iraq, and 
Cuba. These programs usually receive small grants of less than $25,000, 
but their impact is disproportionately great.
  NED human rights programs have been endorsed by the Dalai Lama, Elena 
Bonner, the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights, Iraqi human rights 
activists, Fang Lizhi, the father of the Chinese human rights movement, 
Dr. Sein Win, cousin of Burma's jailed leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and 
many others. The Vietnam Committee said, simply, ``The NED enabled us 
to survive.''
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not in our Nation's best interest and 
I urge Members to oppose it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Hefley amendment. I cannot think of a worse message we can send to 
democrats around the world who are reaching out to us for support. What 
would it say, for example, to those fighting to overcome authoritarian 
rule in a country such as Nigeria, where the military has refused to 
honor the will of the people as expressed in a free and fair election 
held a year ago?
  As a Board member of the National Endowment for Democracy, I am 
familiar with its work in support of human rights and democracy in 
Nigeria. But you should not simply take my word for it. Listen to the 
words of the executive director of the highly acclaimed Civil Liberties 
Organization:

       For us in Nigeria who are struggling to enthrone democracy 
     and permanently end military dictatorship, the National 
     Endowment for Democracy is like oxygen. If it is scrapped, 
     the democratization process in Africa would be seriously 
     endangered.

  Of course, the Endowment's work in Africa is not limited to Nigeria. 
In the current year it is supporting a broad range of groups that have 
joined the continent-wide movement for multiparty democracy that began 
several years ago. Certainly the inspiring events of the past year in 
South Africa, where the Endowment and its core grantees played an 
important role in helping the people prepare for the momentous election 
last April, have contributed significantly to that movement.
  Nevertheless, the tragic events in Rwanda remind us that major 
challenges remain for those Africans seeking peaceful, democratic 
solutions to age-old problems. Among these challenges are:
  Growing ethnic clashes in Kenya, where the Endowment is funding the 
work of Dr. Wangari Mothai's Greenbelt Movement to relieve the tensions 
and assist local residents in the Rift Valley;
  Continued human rights violations in Zaire, where NED is supporting 
four separate groups documenting abuses, providing legal assistance, 
and rallying international support;
  A lack of grassroots participation, particularly in rural areas and 
among women, a problem which is being addressed through NED-funded 
seminars and workshops in a wide range of countries from Ethiopia and 
Somalia in the East to Mali and Sierra Leone in the West.
  One of our pioneers of the democracy movements in Africa, a young 
lawyer named Sadikou Alao, has parlayed Endowment support for a small 
civic organization which began in Benin 3 years ago into a network of 
chapters with over 2,000 members working in 20 African countries. He 
has called NED ``one of the greatest props to the on-going 
democratization process on the continent.''
  Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to leave the impression that the 
Endowment is working in only one part of the world. Indeed, it is an 
international program that reaches out to those everywhere who realize 
that freedom and human rights are not simply luxuries that only certain 
countries can afford. If time permitted I would discuss NED's current 
programs in the Middle East. It is working there with committed 
democrats who can be among the next generation's leaders if only we can 
help give them the support they so desperately need.
  One thing I can guarantee: we cannot help them if we end this 
program. In fact, the costs to us by terminating funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy are almost beyond calculation. I urge 
my colleagues to defeat this harmful amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and amend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California for her outstanding work on human rights in Tibet, and the 
Dalai Lama, and China.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Hefley amendment to 
eliminate all funds for the National Endowment for Democracy [NED]. NED 
plays an important role in promoting democratic reform in numerous 
locations around the world.
  It is clear that the end of the cold war has presented the world with 
a new kind of challenge and a new level of ethnic and regional 
conflict. Establishing and strengthening democratic principles is an 
important cost-effective action. NED is well-positioned to advance 
democratic reforms and deserves adequate funding.
  While I am aware of NED's good work to promote democracy in a number 
of countries, I will focus today on its contributions to the fight for 
freedom in China. In fiscal year 1994, the Endowment is spending under 
$1.5 million to support initiatives for its entire China program. It is 
stretching its limited funds to support a host of initiatives by 
dissidents both inside China and in exile. These activities include 
documenting human rights abuses; providing legal support for political 
prisoners inside the country, and promoting worker rights by supporting 
the work of leading labor activists, including Han Dongfang.
  The acclaimed human rights activist Fang Lizhi has said,

       It would be wonderful if democracy did indeed grow 
     automatically out of economic development, but history gives 
     us, unfortunately, no such guarantees. In the actuality of 
     China today, the economic growth that we see has not in the 
     slightest moved the current leaders in China to alter their 
     autocratic rule.

  Mr. Chairman, the support for democratic activists provided by the 
National Endowment for Democracy is critical if China is going to move 
down a path of respect for the fundamental rights of its citizens.
  Supporting the development and nourishment of democratic institutions 
offers us the best hope of providing long-term solutions to some of the 
world's most serious problems. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
Hefley amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, if the Dalai Lama were here, or Vaclav 
Havel, or Lech Walesa, or Yelena Bonner, or Aung San Suu Kyi, as my 
colleague from Illinois mentioned, they would urge defeat of this 
amendment.
  With the National Endowment for Democracy, you have Republicans and 
Democrats standing behind democratic institutions, standing behind 
elections and promoting human rights and democratic values.
  Mr. Chairman, the best case for the National Endowment for Democracy 
was made last week in the Dominican Republic. It is possible that the 
election there was not free and fair. Who is certifying the results? 
Who are the observers? It is the National Endowment for Democracy. They 
do good work and deserve our support.
  Defeat the Hefley amendment.
  I urge you to oppose the Hefley amendment to cut funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy.
  NED promotes democratic values, making U.S. national interests safer 
worldwide;
  NED builds a coalition among U.S. business, labor, and Democrats and 
Republicans for strengthening democratic, legal, and human rights 
institutions.
  NED supports democratic forces when the U.S. Government cannot;
  NED provides Congress with timely information and has instituted 
management reforms;
  NED provides grants to projects for strengthening democratic 
institutions and processes;
  NED's budget has already been cut;
  The fiscal year 1995 budget request is 27 percent less than the 
President's request and is significantly less than NED received for 
fiscal year 1994;
  Funding for international affairs is scarce;
  It is important that as the United States moves away from cold war 
spending, we invest in promoting democracy abroad.
  The Dalai Lama, Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Oscar Arias, Elena Bonner, 
and Fang Lizhi have praised NED's work and supported NED's efforts in 
their countries.
  NED has worldwide reach--from Russia to Cambodia to South Africa--and 
is an effective tool for furthering United States interests abroad.


                         ned programs in burma

  In fiscal year 1994, the Endowment is spending less than a half 
million dollars for programs in Burma, one of the world's harshest 
dictatorships. This funding has been used to provide infrastructure 
support to the National League for Democracy, the exiled democracy 
movement headed by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as 
support for radio broadcasting into Burma by the exiled democratic 
movement. It also supports a leadership training program, a newsletter 
and an award-winning video that provides information on human rights 
abuses in the country.
  Dr. Sein Win, the Prime Minister-in-exile of the National Coalition 
Government of the Union of Burma, wrote last year that NED support has 
played a ``vital role in the promotion of democracy'' in Burma and 
throughout Asia. He goes on:

       We, the Third World people, in Asia, Africa, and Latin 
     America still have to struggle for democracy, freedom and 
     justice against ruthless dictatorships. The NED's 
     coordination and support for our struggles, in the face of 
     severely limited resources, is very crucial.

         National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, 
           Office of the Prime Minister,
                                                     July 4, 1993.
     Senator Daniel P. Moynihan,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir, Firstly, I would like to express my deep 
     gratitude for your unwavering support and extend the best 
     wishes on behalf of the National Coalition Government of the 
     Union of Burma (NCGUB).
       According to information reaching here, the House of 
     Representatives have drastically reduced the allotment of 
     fund to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) on the 
     assumption that the end of the cold war has made its role to 
     be of less importance.
       We, the Third World people, in Asia, Africa and Latin 
     America still struggle for democracy, freedom and justice 
     against ruthless dictatorships. The NED's coordination and 
     support for our struggles, in the face of severely limited 
     resources, is very crucial.
       In 1992 and 1993 the NED has funded training of the 
     democratic forces of Burma in non-violence action, 
     international travels of leaders for lobbying activities, NLD 
     information office through the International Republican 
     Institute, the Democratic Voice of Burma radio broadcast 
     station in Olso and the publication of newsletter ``Burma 
     Alert.''
       We have achieved much in our struggle because of the 
     support given by the NED. In view of the fact that China and 
     neighbouring countries are abetting the military junta of 
     Burma directly or indirectly, the continued assistance from 
     the NED for us is essential.
       Accordingly, I would like to request you to kindly see to 
     it that the NED receive enough budget allotment from the 
     Congress so that it may continue its vital role of the 
     promotion of democracy especially in Burma and Asia.
       Very cordially yours,
                                                     Dr. Sein Win,
                                                   Prime Minister.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, communism and dictatorships; fund groups 
that overseas want to do those things, make sure human rights groups 
have resources, but for good, solid reasoning; tell me why the 
Republican Party should be the one to dole out the funds, the 
Democratic Party should be the one to dole out the funds, the AFL-CIO 
should be the one to dole out the funds.
  I do not understand why we are asking these groups to do what is so 
very important. Why these groups instead of the Government of the 
United States?
  The gentleman before us mentioned Mr. Arias and how he would be 
supportive. It just so happens in past years we helped defeat him out 
of NED. The problem is NED works at cross-purposes. It is not 
coordinated. It is political groups that are using these funds as they 
see fit.
  In my judgment, it should not be that way. It should be with 
government doing government policy.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who will end debate on our side.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I often come to this floor to try to focus 
an eye on budget cuts.
  Today I think we are out of focus, trying to cut the NED. This is a 
program that we need in America today.
  As we are emphasizing reinventing government, we are emphasizing 
smaller rather than big, as we are emphasizing ways by which to remold 
the world and try to get United States interests in terms of democracy 
and human rights, as we are looking at ways in which to cut foreign aid 
or to refocus foreign aid, this is not the direction to go.
  Right now in Mexico, the NED is working with a new civic alliance to 
promote free and fair elections in 1994. That is in our direct 
interest.
  In Africa where we are experiencing drought in Zaire and Zambia and 
Rwanda, falling apart, we are investing in Kenya to try to ease ethnic 
tensions; please, ladies and gentlemen, vote to fund the National 
Endowment for Democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Hefley amendment to 
eliminate funding for the National Endowment for Democracy.
  If you vote to abolish funding for the NED, you are voting to end 
many important international projects in countries in which the United 
States has security and human rights interests. For example, with an 
NED grant, Mexico's Civic Alliance, a newly created coalition of over 
300 organizations, is working on an extensive program of monitoring and 
observation for the 1994 presidential elections, which have been marred 
by accusations that the electoral authorities are controlled by the 
ruling PRI.
  As the world watches helplessly as ethnic warfare tears apart Rwanda, 
the NED is working in other Central African countries to ensure that 
the Rwandan tragedy is not repeated. For 2 years, the agency has worked 
in Kenya to ease ethnic tensions through education programs. The NED 
has also made a small grant to a Ugandan organization to monitor the 
human rights situation in the region.
  As my colleagues know, I often vote to reduce funding for unnecessary 
and outdated Government programs. I firmly believe that the NED is the 
wrong agency on which to focus our budget-cutting eye.
  The NED takes a relatively modest amount of Federal money, invests it 
wisely, and works to ensure democracy. One need only look at South 
Africa and the Middle East to see that the NED truly gets results.
  Support democracy--oppose the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say in closing that I understand the 
arguments that have been made. I agree with the arguments that we want 
to promote democracy.
  If you remember the one chart we have showed, we show we have all 
kinds of ways to promote democracy through this country without this 
private, and many times rather amateurish, kind of approach.
  All over the world as we were researching this, we were told about 
the absolute bungling and mismanagement of amateurs who were sent into 
this field of very important foreign relations, and created all kinds 
of difficulties with it, in addition to good things that have been 
mentioned that have been talked about here tonight.
  So I would renew my encouragement that we save this money and spend 
it in a much more meaningful way.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 words that describe why we need 
the National Endowment for Democracy. Those words are Russia, Ukraine, 
the former Yugoslavia, South Africa, Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, Cyprus, and I will cut it off at 13. We will leave out 
Nogorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan and the rest.
  But democracy is very painfully developing around the world. Some 
places it is not developing at all.
  Yes, communism has been defeated, but Communists are showing up and 
winning elections in Central Europe and other places. Poland is far 
from out of the woods.
  The National Endowment for Democracy is the private sector getting 
into places and doing things that government cannot do.
  There is a suspicion of governmental agencies, the CIA, the FBI, but 
when labor, when management, when Republicans and Democrats, not as 
agents of the Government but of the private sector, want to help build 
democracy. I cannot think of a more useful mission extant in the world 
today.
  Now, we fund the National Endowment for the Arts, we fund the 
National Endowment for Humanities seven times more than the little 
piddling sum we give the National Endowment for Democracy. Important as 
the humanities are, important as the arts are, they do not mean much 
without a democratic world. Moving toward that is the function of NED.
  We ought to support it overwhelmingly. I say that with some dismay, 
because I have never known the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] to 
be wrong except this time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment. To stop funding for the National Endowment for 
Democracy would deal a serious blow to people and organizations around 
the world who embrace the same ideals and values as our own and who 
struggle daily for the opportunities which we quite often take for 
granted.
  The National Endowment for Democracy, far from being a cold war 
holdover, only having value if there exists a Soviet Union, enables the 
United States to support democratic movements throughout the world in 
peaceful and creative ways. It supports organizations which promote 
human rights, freedom of speech, free and fair elections, education in 
democracy, and development of private enterprise--organizations which 
share our values and ideals.
  In the past year NED has supported such programs as the Center for 
Law and Human Rights Education in Liberia whose educational programs 
directly reached 45,000 students in Africa's oldest independent nation. 
This program provided rehabilitation and civic education, taught 
concepts of human rights to activists and law students, and supported 
the only legal aid clinic which represented victims of human rights 
abuse.
  The Endowment enabled the NDI, IRI, CIPE, and FTUI to sponsor a 
seminar in Romania which brought together over 200 people representing 
trade unions, entrepreneurs, journalists and human rights activists 
from around the country in order to foster a culture of democracy.
  In Slovakia, the Milan Simecka Foundation was able to develop a 
curriculum for human rights education on the secondary school level and 
training programs for educators.
  The NED supported the work of the Laogai Research Foundation, which 
documented the use of prison labor in China. Last month, Harry Wu, a 
former prisoner and victim of the Chinese prison labor system, 
presented evidence that showed beyond doubt that China continues to 
violate the MOU with the United States and that products of prison 
labor continue to be exported to the United States.
  The Tibet Fund was able to distribute materials inside Tibet where 
the distinctive religious and cultural heritage are threatened and 
where uncensored news and information are not available.
  Among the programs funded in Vietnam, the Institute for Democracy in 
Vietnam was able to strengthen the democratic forces by publishing 
materials, supporting pro-democracy and human rights organizations, and 
radio broadcasts.
  Grants from NED enable Freedom House to distribute humanitarian aid 
through independent human rights groups and books on pro-democratic 
topics in Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, these are only a few examples of the many programs 
which the National Endowment for Democracy funds each year; programs 
which enable the United States to support democratic reforms, human 
rights and free market economies. To say the NED ``has no place in a 
world without the Soviet Union'' ignores the millions of people world-
wide who struggle every day for freedom, democracy, and human rights. 
The goal of NED was not only the defeat of communism, it should 
continue to exist to promote and expand the values and ideals of 
democracy around the world; and that task is far from complete.
  Cutting NED support now would send the message that the United States 
no longer cares about the struggle to establish secure and stable 
democratic governments around the world. This, Mr. Chairman, is the 
wrong message to send. Investment in NED is not only a humanitarian 
investment, it is also a strategic investment that serves the interests 
and security of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ``noes'' 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, in the event there is a vote certified on 
this amendment, would we, after this vote, vote on the other remaining 
votes to be voted?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce that pursuant to the previous 
order of the House of today, after this 15-minute vote on the Hefley 
amendment, if ordered, the Chair will resume proceedings on the three 
postponed questions for possible 5-minutes votes if ordered.
  Does that clarify the situation?
  Mr. ROGERS. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Do 
we have to call for a vote on each of the successive 5-minute votes, 
and if so, how?
  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business will be the pending request for a 
recorded vote on each of those questions.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89, 
noes 317, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 283]

                                AYES--89

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Boehner
     Callahan
     Camp
     Clay
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Crane
     DeFazio
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fingerhut
     Frank (MA)
     Gekas
     Gonzalez
     Grams
     Green
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Mazzoli
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Myers
     Orton
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Roth
     Roukema
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--317

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2039

  Mr. GREENWOOD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi, YATES, GONZALEZ, SMITH of Michigan, 
and HALL of Texas, Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY, Mr. MYERS of Indiana, and 
Mr. SWETT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments to title V on which 
further proceedings were postponed in the following order: first, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]; second, 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Inslee]; 
and, third, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter].

                              {time}  2040


                    amendment offered by mr. stearns

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ``noes'' prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 284, 
noes 122, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 284]

                               AYES--284

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brooks
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--122

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     King
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Mann
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  2048

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. McCollum against.

  Mr. ENGEL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MILLER of California, CLEMENT, PORTER, HOCHBRUECKNER, DURBIN, 
BARLOW, NEAL of Massachusetts, VOLKMER, MOAKLEY, and BARLOW, and Ms. 
LAMBERT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendments offered by mr. inslee

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Inslee] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ``noes'' prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 268, 
noes 139, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 285]

                               AYES--268

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--139

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hyde
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Price (NC)
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Torres
     Underwood (GU)
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2058

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Towns against.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. porter

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ``ayes'' prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 
demanded a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 318, 
noes 89, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 286]

                               AYES--318

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Mazzoli
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--89

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Cramer
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dixon
     Duncan
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Holden
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Mann
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rogers
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Sabo
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Smith (IA)
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Swift
     Synar
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2105

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Hastings against.

  Mr. ROTH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. LLOYD changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY

       (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the United 
     States Information Agency during fiscal year 1995, $1,440,000 
     are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Director of the United States Information Agency 
     shall allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled 
     among the Agency's accounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses. Amounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses in each such 
     account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to such 
     account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       This may be cited as the ``Department of State and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am having difficulty hearing. Could 
the Chair tell me exactly where we are in the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk has just competed the reading of title V and 
is about to begin the reading of title VI, General Provisions.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Has the Chair begun the reading of title VI?
  The CHAIRMAN. No. Title VI will be read by section.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Title VI 
be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair please repeat the 
request?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has asked 
unanimous consent to open title VI at any point.
  Does the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] concur in that 
request?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]?
  There was no objection.
  The text of title VI is as follows:

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive Order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application 
     of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be 
     held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     each provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected 
     thereby.
       Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act or 
     provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United 
     States derived by the collection of fees available to the 
     agencies funded by this Act shall be available for obligation 
     or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) 
     creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or 
     activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for 
     any project or activity for which funds have been denied or 
     restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) 
     reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) 
     contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees; unless the 
     Appropriations Committees on both Houses of Congress are 
     notified fifteen days in advance of such reprogramming of 
     funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act or provided 
     from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States 
     derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies 
     funded by this Act shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditure for activities, programs, or projects through a 
     reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 per 
     centum, whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing 
     programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 per 
     centum funding for any existing program, project, or 
     activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 per centum as 
     approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel which would result 
     in a change in existing programs, activities, or projects 
     as approved by Congress, unless the Appropriations 
     Committees of both House of Congress are notified fifteen 
     days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       Sec. 606. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the construction, repair (other than 
     emergency repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of 
     vessels for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration in shipyards located outside of the United 
     States.
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used for the construction, repair (other than emergency 
     repair), conversion, or modernization of aircraft for the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in facilities 
     located outside the United States and Canada.
       Titles I through VI of this Act may be cited as the 
     ``Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against title VI?
  Are there any amendments to title VI?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer an amendment at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that Members will come to order and attempt to 
listen to some of the things I have to say here, because I think that 
they will be very much interested in what I am about to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I hope to offer, and I hope it 
will be voted upon and accepted by the House. It will prevent the 
President of the United States from obligating funds for any 
international peacekeeping mission that would require the deployment of 
United States forces in Haiti. Basically, Mr. Chairman, my amendment 
intends to say that when we go off on our recess for July 4 for 2 
weeks, we should not wake up and find out that we have invaded Haiti 
without at least an opportunity to express ourselves in Congress on 
whether or not that should happen.
  Mr. Chairman, we are saying that the President of the United States 
should do essentially the same as did former President George Bush, 
when he came to Congress and asked for the authorization of Congress 
before going forward with Operation Desert Storm.
  There are a lot of reasons, Mr. Chairman, I suppose, that we could 
justify an invasion of Haiti. We could say that it is geographically 
close.
  We could say that there is no democracy there. We could say that it 
is totalitarian. We could say that there is great suffering in Haiti. 
All of those might be right. However, Members could, for those very 
same reasons make the very same arguments about Cuba.

                              {time}  2110

  If we are going to be invading places in the Caribbean, I suggest 
that in Cuba, there is abundant lack of democracy, a totalitarian 
government, tremendous suffering, and, of course, Cuba is much closer 
to us than Haiti is. Of course Cuba suffers under Fidel Castro, and has 
since 1959.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we have justification for invading 
Haiti, and I do not think for that matter we should be invading Cuba. 
The fact is, an invasion of Haiti is not in our national interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that there will ever be a problem of 
whether or not the United States can take Haiti. Probably in 35 
minutes, it will all be done. But what will happen then? We went into 
Haiti once before in this century, and we stayed 20 years. We could not 
get out. What will happen when our young men and women in uniform go to 
Haiti this time, and they find that there are riots and looting and 
sniping and terrorism? When they got shot, or when they get hacked with 
machetes, what are we going to tell their parents if we invade Haiti, 
and our people in uniform start dying with regularity?
  Are we going to tell them it is because we are there to restore 
democracy and to restore Mr. Aristide, the man who has openly espoused 
necklacing? I saw him on a T.V. tape today. A lot of people say he did 
not espouse necklacing. I saw him do it. I watched that tape.
  He said that necklacing, the practice of putting a rubber tire around 
a person's neck, filling it with gasoline and setting him on fire was 
``cute, pretty, that it had a good smell, and that young students 
should use it when you must.''
  Mr. Chairman, he is no ``democrat'' with a small ``d,'' and we do not 
have any business risking the lives of our young men and women in 
uniform to restore him to power in Haiti. In fact, I say that Jean 
Bertrand Aristide is not worth one American life. Furthermore, if we 
are down there messing around in Haiti, what happens if things really 
go bad with that nuclear problem in North Korea? Are we going to be 
diverting our attention to one small insignificant place in the 
Carribean and all of a sudden find ourselves in real trouble on the 
other side of the globe? I do not think that is a very good way to 
spend the Fourth of July. I do not think that any of us want to explain 
to our constituents that we are in Haiti, invading Haiti, on our 
Independence Day.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer an amendment that I suspect may be 
stricken on a point of order, a rule or whatever, and we will not get 
an up or down vote. If, in fact, there is no objection, fine. We will 
get an up or down vote on my motion. Otherwise, I may have to resort to 
other means, perhaps a motion to recommit, or perhaps other technical 
means at my disposal. But we ought to have a vote on this issue--one 
way or another.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that this House will not be doing its duty to 
the American people, if we go home for the Fourth of July recess 
without saying to the President of the United States:
  ``Before you go mucking around in the Caribbean and sending our kids 
to invade Haiti, you must first come to us for authorization.''
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and I 
offered this amendment to the Committee on Rules and we were denied at 
that point. Basically all it does is limits funds in the peacekeeping 
section of this bill from being used for U.N. peacekeeping operations 
in Haiti in which United States troops would be deployed without first 
seeking the authorization of the American people through the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard enough of U.N. Ambassador Albright to know 
that I want some insurance against the continued policy of aggressive 
multilateralism. I would bring to the House's attention a June 15 
Washington Times story which indicates that Deputy Secretary of State 
Talbot told U.N. officials ``the United States is poised to invade 
Haiti within 2 months.'' This was on June 15.
  Mr. Chairman, anyone who doubts the Washington Times or this 
administration's commitment to aggressive multilateralism and invading 
small countries should take a look at the New York Times just this past 
Saturday. That story reports the administration is now trying to put 
together a U.N. peacekeeping force of 14,000 to nation-build in Haiti; 
7,000 of those people are Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear about one point that has caused 
some confusion about the amendment. The amendment does not, I 
underline, does not, prevent the President from committing the United 
States to acting unilaterally in this matter nor does the amendment 
prejudge what decision this House would make. But if the President 
decides time and policy allows the United States to work through the 
Security Council process with the blessings of Boutros Ghali, then I 
think time also allows for an authorization from the American people 
whose sons and daughters will be sent to Haiti and do that through the 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, what scares me most is that this President seems to 
have learned nothing from the Somalian disaster. Rather than 
demonstrating a national interest in invading Haiti and securing the 
consent of Congress, he would rather circumvent Congress. Using the 
United Nations as a tool and working through the United Nations having 
received the proper authorization from Congress would work to the 
President's long-term advantage.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us support the restoration of democracy in 
Haiti, but this House is very divided over the proper course. Twice we 
have voted on Haiti and twice we have reached a very different 
conclusion.
  I would hope this House at least agrees that if we are going to 
deploy troops to Haiti, Congress should be consulted before our sons 
and daughters are placed in harm's way. It is a simple matter of asking 
the American people if they are willing to send their sons and 
daughters to a military invasion of Haiti. That is all we are asking 
that we do.


                  amendment offered by mr. livingston

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Livingston: On Page 96, after line 
     19, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 607. None of the funds provided by this Act may be 
     used for Contributions for International Peacekeeping 
     Operations or Activities for any United Nations peacekeeping 
     operation related to Haiti in which United States troops are 
     deployed, without prior authorization of Congress.


                             point of order

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a limitation to a 
general appropriation bill. Under the revised clause 2, rule XXI, such 
amendments are not in order during the reading of a general 
appropriation bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the revised rule states in part

       Except as provided in paragraph (d), no amendment shall be 
     in order during consideration of a general appropriation bill 
     proposing a limitation not specifically contained or 
     authorized in existing law for the period of the limitation.

  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is a limitation and is not 
specifically contained or authorized in existing law and therefore is 
in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. It is also legislation in an 
appropriations bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] 
desire to be heard?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I do, Mr. Chairman,
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to be heard on the point of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment again prevents the President of the 
United States from obligating funds for any further peacekeeping 
mission that would require the deployment of United States forces in 
Haiti without first coming to Congress.
  An identical amendment was offered during the full Committee on 
Appropriations consideration of the bill. Unfortunately, it was 
defeated 17 to 32 on largely a party line vote. I feel that we should 
allow the rest of the House to vote on this vital issue.
  Mr. Chairman, if the President wants to use the United Nations as a 
tool to send United States troops to Haiti, he should be required to 
seek authorization from Congress.
  The Chair may rule this amendment out of order because it is a 
funding limitation and is not offered at the appropriate time. However, 
I am offering this amendment to the general provisions title of the 
bill that funds our international peacekeeping efforts.

                              {time}  2120

  So as the President has already informed the United Nations that he 
wants a multilateral invasion of Haiti within 2 months if the sanctions 
do not unseat the military rulers, this is our only opportunity to send 
the President a message. It only seems appropriate that this amendment 
be made in order without defeating the motion on a ruling.
  I hope that the Chair will, indeed, make a ruling that this amendment 
is, in fact, in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman's desire, as he 
said, that we ought to vote on this.
  But this House is governed by a set of rules some of which speak to 
the matter of germaneness.
  I would ask the Chair to support the point of order raised by the 
previous gentleman and to rule this out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule unless additional Members 
desire to speak on the point of order.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, only last week the Committee on Rules 
waived the rules on three Federal courthouses. I voted for those, 
because I thought it was important. If we are going to hide in this 
Chamber behind a point of order on not voting to invade Haiti, I think 
that is wrong, and I think that we require or need an up-or-down vote 
on this as our responsibility in Congress and not hide behind the rule.
  If we can do it for three Federal courthouses, we can sure do it when 
it comes to an invasion of Haiti.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, the discussion should, in fact, be on the 
point of order and not on hypotheticals. I would argue that we are out 
of order in that regard.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Brown of California). The Chair is constrained to 
rule that the gentleman was not speaking to the point of order.
  The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from West 
Virginia, namely, that while the amendment assumes the form of a 
limitation, it also actually contains legislation on an appropriation 
bill requiring subsequent congressional approval, is constrained to 
uphold the point of order made by the gentleman from West Virginia.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair's ruling is sustained, is 
it not then in order for the gentleman from Louisiana to offer a 
similar amendment to limit funds on a motion to recommit?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot speculate on what could be in a motion 
to recommit in the House.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the Chairman. I look forward to offering such 
a motion.


                   amendment offered by Mr. traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 96, after line 19, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contact with, any entity using funds 
     made available in this Act, the head of each Federal agency, 
     to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such 
     entity a notice describing the statement made in subsection 
     (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of discussion on funds 
for a lot of reasons, to promote democracy overseas. I think my 
amendment would promote a little democracy in America with a few jobs.
  I would appreciate it if the Committee would accept it and pass over 
this amendment without prejudice and keep it in the conference.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have looked at the gentleman's 
amendment and have no objections to it. We accept it. It was in the 
bill last year. We have talked with the minority about this, and I 
think that we are in agreement to accept the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, Radio Free Asia will be working when the 
Chinese start buying some Motorolas. I ask for a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendement was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Condit.

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Condit: Page 96, after line 19, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 607. There is appropriated out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated for fiscal year 1995 for 
     expenses necessary to carry out section 501 of the 
     Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1365) to 
     reimburse States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens an 
     amount equal to, and each amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by titles I through VI of this Act (other than 
     by this section) that is not required to be appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by, $600,000,000 and 2.5 percent, respectively.

  Mr. CONDIT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. Condit asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Congresswoman Thurman and I 
are offering the Condit-Thurman Amendment to Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations for fiscal year 1995. This amendment provides $600 
million to local and state governments which have born the cost of 
incarcerating criminal aliens. A cost which is a federal 
responsibility!
  As you know Mr. Chairman, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
1986 authorizes reimbursement to States for these costs in section 501, 
which is codified in 8 United States Code 1365. In addition, on April 
20, the House approved our amendment authorizing reimbursement for 
incarcerating criminal aliens in an en-bloc amendment that was adopted 
by a vote of 402 to 22.
  $600 million is the amount scored by the Congressional Budget Office 
as necessary to fully reimburse state and local governments in fiscal 
year 1995. Illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility Mr. 
Chairman, yet we are abdicating this responsibility.
  The Condit-Thurman amendment give Congress the opportunity to own-up 
to its commitments and provides the funding for reimbursing State and 
local governments after many years of allocating scarce resources to 
their jails and prisons. Criminal aliens are in State and county jails 
because the Federal Government has failed to enforce immigration laws. 
The U.S. criminal alien population totals 4 percent of all the U.S. 
prison population. California alone incarcerates 55 percent of all 
criminal aliens in the United States and can no longer continue to be 
expected to pay for costs which the Federal Government has failed to 
pay. A 2.5 percent cut across the board is the only fair way of funding 
this program.
  With regard to the Byrne Program, the $20.1 reduction could be 
considered the incarcerated alien portion of the $446 million increase 
of Byrne. Our amendment still leaves sizable amount of $784.2 million 
for State law enforcement programs under Byrne. Therefore, States 
without incarcerated criminal aliens do not lose under our amendment.
  Another important provision of the Condit-Thurman amendment is that 
these funds would be appropriated directly to section 501 of the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act versus the current proposal of 
filtering criminal alien reimbursement moneys through the Byrne grant 
formula. This policy does not do justice to States because by filtering 
funds through the Byrne formula you force States to choose between 
reimbursing for criminal aliens and much needed law enforcement 
programs like additional police officers on crime prevention programs.
  Lastly, under the formula currently mandated for the Byrne Grant 
Program, States with no criminal alien populations get a larger share 
of the moneys but will not have to make the tough choices that criminal 
alien impacted States will have to make. We must protect this 
reimbursement by separating it from other Department of Justice 
programs which may be subject to pressures from other programs within 
and outside the DOJ.
  Mr. Chairman, the Condit-Thurman amendment is supported by national 
and international law enforcement organizations like California Peace 
Officers Association, California Highway Patrol, International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and the California Police Chiefs 
Association. Chiefs of Police from all the affected States met with me 
and many members of Congress to discuss this issue and to convey to us 
their inability to allocate their law enforcement resources to programs 
that really prevent further crime problems.
  Should we not listen to law enforcement in our State and local 
governments? Aren't they the people whom we were elected to represent? 
Can we continue to strap local and state governments' budgets? We are 
not proposing a new program. We are not proposing new spending. The 
Federal Government should live up to its' commitments. This is not a 
California issue. It is not a Florida, Texas, or New York issue. It is 
an issue of fiscal responsibility. It is an issue of fairness to State 
and local governments. It is an issue of right versus wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson].
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Condit-Thurman 
amendment, which would provide $600 million for the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program [SCAAP], the full amount needed by States to 
pay for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens.
  Nationwide, there are 35,000 or more criminal aliens incarcerated in 
State prisons. California alone houses more than 18,000 undocumented 
felons, at a cost projected to exceed $390 million this year. And 
California is not alone. New York spends an estimated $63 million 
annually in incarceration costs; Florida estimates its annual burden to 
be in excess of $58 million; and Texas calculates a 1993 liability of 
$52 million. Yet, while State and local governments have the 
responsibility for incarcerating criminal aliens and processing their 
cases, they have no jurisdiction, obviously, over the enforcement of 
immigration laws, no authority to deport aliens who are convicted of 
crimes, and no authority to ensure that those deported are not 
permitted to reenter the country.
  As Mr. Condit pointed out, Congress recognized the unfairness of this 
situation in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act [IRCA], where 
it acknowledged the Federal Government's responsibility for the 
criminal alien population. Section 501 of that Act specifically 
authorizes the reimbursement to States of costs incurred in the 
imprisonment of illegal aliens. Unfortunately, however, this commitment 
has yet to be fulfilled, because Congress has failed to appropriate any 
funding at all for that purpose.
  Two months ago, the House of Representatives reaffirmed the Federal 
Government's responsibility for the criminal alien population when it 
approved an amendment I offered, along with Representatives Berman, 
Condit, and Thurman, to H.R. 3355, the Omnibus Crime Bill. That 
amendment, which is currently being considered in the House-Senate 
conference committee, would ensure that if the Federal Government does 
not provide reimbursement to States for the cost of incarcerating 
criminal aliens through the regular funding process, beginning in 1998, 
that funding will be mandated by law. Our amendment provided, further, 
that local governments, as well as States, would be reimbursed.

  In the wake of that vote, the Clinton administration sent to Congress 
a proposal to provide $350 million for the coming fiscal year for the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Although that proposal was not 
a sufficient amount to provide full reimbursement, it was significant, 
in that it marked the first time that a President has ever requested 
funding for this program, which Congress had authorized 8 years ago.
  The Appropriations Committee's response to the Administration's 
request, which was already far below full funding has been a 
disappointment to many of us from States with large populations of 
incarcerated aliens. This appropriations bill merely allows states to 
use funds from the very popular Edward Byrne Formula Grant Program to 
pay for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. That means that 
California and other affected States will have to choose between using 
these funds for the costs of criminal aliens, or for other important 
purposes such as crime and drug prevention programs.
  Under the bill, the Byrne program grants will be increased, but even 
if California, for example, chooses to use its full increase to pay 
costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, that amount would provide just 
$48 million, or about one-sixth of the amount the State needs for that 
purpose. Other States with large populations of incarcerated criminal 
aliens face a similar situation. This shortfall of funding can, and 
should, be rectified by passing this amendment, which will provide $600 
million to reimburse States for the costs of incarcerating illegal 
aliens.
  It is also important that we not set a precedent of reimbursing 
states for the incarceration of criminal aliens out of the Byrne grant 
program, which would force States to spend funds which have 
traditionally been used for effective local law enforcement programs to 
pay for a Federal responsibility. The Clinton administration requested 
that reimbursement to states for costs associated with criminal aliens 
be funded through a separate State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
[SCAAP]. Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee decided, instead, 
to fund this program in a manner that forces States to choose between 
local programs that work, and funds they are rightfully due.

  Beyond passing this amendment, we also need to redouble our efforts 
to ensure that counties and cities are also eligible for these funds. 
It is critical that the House-Senate conference committee on the crime 
bill adopt the House-passed amendment that provides reimbursement for 
local government entities, as well as States.
  I am sympathetic to the constraints that the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the members of his subcommittee faced in 
writing this bill--their budget allocation was a full $1.2 billion 
below the President's request--and I thank the gentleman for his 
subcommittee's efforts to increase the size of the border patrol above 
the level requested by the President. I also recognize that the reason 
we have had so much difficulty getting the Federal Government to assume 
the costs that California and many other States are unfairly burdened 
with is the Federal Government's very serious budget deficit problem. 
Getting the Federal Government to pay for something that States are 
currently paying for--even though it is the right thing to do--means 
operating at cross purposes with our efforts to reduce Federal budget 
deficits. But it is important to realize that States are also facing 
major budget shortfalls due in large part to the Federal Government's 
abdication of its responsibility for the incarceration of criminal 
aliens and for the provision of services to undocumented aliens.
  To restate the basic point about reimbursing States for the costs of 
criminal aliens: incarcerating criminals who are here in the U.S. 
illegally is a Federal responsibility. The Federal Government is 
responsible for preventing people from entering the U.S. illegally, and 
if it fails to do so, then it should be obligated to assume the burden 
of paying for illegal entrants who commit crimes. It is unfair for 
States to be burdened with that responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides relief to States for the cost 
of incarcerating people who have entered our country in violation of 
Federal laws. This cost should be borne by all U.S. citizens, not just 
those who live in regions with large numbers of illegal immigrants.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, and I may not object, but 
I just was wondering how we are going to allocate the time.
  I would like to speak on behalf of the gentleman's amendment, and we 
do not want to be cut short on it either.
  What is the intent of limiting the debate time? Are we still under 
the 5-minute rule?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would 
say to the gentleman that under my unanimous consent request we would 
have 20 or 30 minutes, whatever we could agree on, for total time to 
debate this issue, debating the amendment and any amendments to the 
amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. So the gentleman's recommending 20 minutes for the 
opponents and 20 minutes for the proponents?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. A total of 20. Let me get some sense: If it is 30 
minutes' time limit, it would be 15 minutes on each side.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I regrettably have to object to that at the present 
time. I do not think there is going to be that much time, but some of 
us coming from some of these States like New York, Texas, and 
California have serious problems, and we want to talk about it. So if 
the gentleman would just withhold briefly and make his request in about 
10 minutes, I think it might very well go through.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, much of the cost of this bill is contained in section 5 
dealing with U.N. peacekeeping, and the gentleman's amendment cuts that 
as well as everything else in the bill by 2\1/2\ percent. The scale of 
assessments to pay for U.N. peacekeeping, and I think Members will be 
interested to find out a little more of what is being talked about.
  I have here an itemized list showing the percentage of the U.N. 
peacekeeping budget that each U.N. member has been assessed to pay for 
1994.
  The United States comes in first and highest at 31.8 percent.
  Moving on down the list, and rounding each number off to the nearest 
hundredth of a percent, we find Japan--in second place--at 12.5 
percent, compared to America's assessment of almost 32 percent, then 
comes Germany at 9.0 percent, compared to America's assessment of 
almost 32 percent. Russia, 8.6 percent, France, 7.6 percent, Great 
Britain, 6.4 percent, Italy, 4.3 percent, Canada, 3.1 percent, Spain, 
2.0 percent, Ukraine, 1.9 percent, Australia, 1.5 percent, The 
Netherlands, 1.5 percent, Sweden, 1.1 percent, and Belgium, 1.1 
percent. Then, guess who? China weighs in with just under 1 percent--at 
number 15 on the list.
  That's right. Belgium, with a population of only 10 million people, 
pays a higher assessment than does China.
  But that's typical of the kind of problem we run into when the 
formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy is subcontracted to 
multilateral organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, this list goes on and on. By my count, 153 members of 
the United Nations each pay less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 
peacekeeping budget. Some 56 of these members each pay only one-
hundredth of 1 percent.
  This misguided reliance on multilateralism, as a substitute for 
clear-headed U.S. policy, has got to stop. Support the Rogers amendment 
and send a message.

                 U.N. PEACEKEEPING SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS                 
                              [In percent]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Regular
                                                   Peacekeeping   budget
                                                    scale 1994    scale 
                                                                 1992-94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China..................................     0.978        0.77           
France.................................     7.615        6.00           
Russian Federation.....................     8.618        6.71           
United Kingdom.........................     6,372        5.02           
United States..........................    31.795       25.00           
      Subtotal perm 5..................    55.219       43.50           
Andorra................................     0.010        0.01           
Australia..............................     1.518        1.51           
Austria................................     0.754        0.75           
Bolarus................................     0.482        0.48           
Belgium................................     1.065        1.06           
Canada.................................     3.125        3.11           
Denmark................................     0.658        0.65           
Finland................................     0.573        0.57           
Germany................................     8.974        8.93           
Iceland................................     0.030        0.03           
Ireland................................     0.181        0.18           
Italy..................................     4.311        4.29           
Japan..................................    12.512       12.45           
Liechtenstein..........................     0.010        0.01           
Luxembourg.............................     0.060        0.06           
Monaco.................................     0.010        0.01           
Netherlands............................     1.507        1.50           
New Zealand............................     0.241        0.24           
Norway.................................     0.553        0.55           
San Marino.............................     0.010        0.01           
South Africa...........................     0.412        0.41           
Spain..................................     1.990        1.98           
Sweden.................................     1.116        1.11           
Ukraine................................     1,879        1.87           
      Subtotal group B.................    41.976       41.77           
Albania................................     0.002        0.01           
Algeria................................     0.032        0.18           
Argentina..............................     0.115        0.57           
Armenia................................     0.026        0.13           
Azarbaijan.............................     0.044        0.22           
Bahamas................................     0.004        0.02           
Bahrain................................     0.005        0.03           
Barbados...............................     0.002        0.01           
Bolivia................................     0.002        0.01           
Bosnia/Hercegovina.....................     0.006        0.04           
Brazil.................................     0.320        1.59           
Brunei Darussalam......................     0.005        0.05           
Bulgaria...............................     0.025        0.18           
Cambodia\1\............................     0.002        0.01           
Cameroon...............................     0.002        0.01           
Chile..................................     0.018        0.08           
Colombia...............................     0.025        0.15           
Congo..................................     0.002        0.01           
Costa Rica.............................     0.002        0.01           
Cote D'Ivaire..........................     0.004        0.02           
Croatia................................     0.025        0.13           
Cuba...................................     0.018        0.09           
Cyprus.................................     0.004        0.02           
Dem PR of Korea........................     0.010        0.05           
Dominican Republic.....................     0.004        0.02           
Equador................................     0.006        0.09           
Egypt..................................     0.014        0.07           
El Salvador............................     0.002        0.01           
Estonia................................     0.014        0.07           
Fiji...................................     0.002        0.01           
Gabon..................................     0.004        0.02           
Georgia................................     0.042        0.21           
Ghana..................................     0.002        0.01           
Greece.................................     0.071        0.35           
Guatamala..............................     0.004        0.02           
Guyana.................................     0.002        0.01           
Honduras...............................     0.002        0.01           
Hungary................................     0.038        0.18           
India..................................     0.073        0.38           
Indoniesia.............................     0.052        0.16           
Iran...................................     0.155        0.77           
Iraq...................................     0.025        0.13           
Israel.................................     0.046        0.23           
Jamaica................................     0.002        0.01           
Jordan.................................     0.002        0.01           
Kazakhstan.............................     0.071        0.35           
Kenya..................................     0.002        0.01           
Kuwait.................................     0.050        0.25           
Kyrgystan..............................     0.012        0.06           
Latvia.................................     0.025        0.13           
Lebanon................................     0.002        0.01           
Liberia\1\.............................     0.002        0.01           
Libya..................................     0.048        0.24           
Lithuania..............................     0.030        0.15           
Malaysia...............................     0.024        0.12           
Malta..................................     0.002        0.01           
Marshal Islands........................     0.002        0.01           
Mauritius..............................     0.002        0.01           
Mexico.................................     0.177        0.85           
Micronesia (Fed States)................     0.002        0.01           
Republic of Moldova....................     0.030        0.15           
Mongolia...............................     0.002        0.01           
Morocco................................     0.008        0.03           
Nicaragua..............................     0.002        0.01           
Nigeria................................     0.040        0.20           
Oman...................................     0.006        0.03           
Pakistan...............................     0.012        0.06           
Panama.................................     0.004        0.02           
Paraguay...............................     0.004        0.02           
Peru...................................     0.012        0.06           
Philippines............................     0.014        0.07           
Poland.................................     0.095        0.47           
Portugal...............................     0.040        0.20           
Quatar.................................     0.010        0.05           
Republic of Korea......................     0.139        0.69           
Romania................................     0.034        0.17           
Saudi Arabia...........................     0.193        0.96           
Singapore..............................     0.024        0.12           
Slovania...............................     0.016        0.09           
Sri Lanka..............................     0.002        0.01           
Swaziland..............................     0.002        0.01           
Syria..................................     0.008        0.04           
Tejikistan.............................     0.010        0.05           
Thailand...............................     0.022        0.11           
The Former Yugoslav Republic of                                         
 Macedonia.............................     0.004        0.02           
Trinidad & Tobago......................     0.010        0.05           
Tunisia................................     0.006        0.03           
Turkey.................................     0.055        0.27           
Tuskmanistan...........................     0.012        0.06           
United Arab Emirates...................     0.042        0.21           
Uruguay................................     0.008        0.04           
Uzbakistan.............................     0.052        0.25           
Venezuela..............................     0.099        0.49           
Vietnam................................     0.002        0.01           
Yugoslavia\2\..........................     0.028        0.14           
Zaire\1\...............................     0.002        0.01           
Zambia\1\..............................     0.002        0.01           
      Subtotal group C.................     2.749       13.65           
Afghanistan\1\.........................     0.001        0.01           
Angola.................................     0.001        0.01           
Antigua & Barbuda......................     0.001        0.01           
Bangladesh\1\..........................     0.001        0.01           
Belize.................................     0.001        0.01           
Benin\1\...............................     0.001        0,01           
Bhutan\1\..............................     0.001        0.01           
Botswana\1\............................     0.001        0.01           
Burkdna Faso\1\........................     0.001        0.01           
Burundi\1\.............................     0.001        0.01           
Cape Verde\1\..........................     0.001        0.01           
Cent African Rep\1\....................     0.001        0.01           
Chad\1\................................     0.001        0.01           
Comoros\1\.............................     0.001        0.01           
Djibouti\1\............................     0.001        0.01           
Dominica...............................     0.001        0.01           
Equatorial Guinea\1\...................     0.001        0.01           
Enitrea................................     0.001        0.01           
Ethiopia\1\............................     0.001        0.01           
Gambia.................................     0.001        0.01           
Grenada................................     0.001        0.01           
Guinea\1\..............................     0.001        0.01           
Guinea-Bissau\1\.......................     0.001        0.01           
Haiti\1\...............................     0.001        0.01           
Laos\1\................................     0.001        0.01           
Lesotho\1\.............................     0.001        0.01           
Madagascar\1\..........................     0.001        0.01           
Malawi\1\..............................     0.001        0.01           
Maldives\1\............................     0.001        0.01           
Mali\1\................................     0.001        0.01           
Mauritania\1\..........................     0.001        0.01           
Mozambique\1\..........................     0.001        0.01           
Myanmar\1\.............................     0.001        0.01           
Namibia................................     0.001        0.01           
Nepal\1\...............................     0.001        0.01           
Niger\1\...............................     0.001        0.01           
Papua New Guinea.......................     0.001        0.01           
Rwanda\1\..............................     0.001        0.01           
St. Kitts & Navda......................     0.001        0.01           
St. Lucia..............................     0.001        0.01           
St. Vincent & Grenadines...............     0.001        0.01           
Samoa\1\...............................     0.001        0.01           
Sao Tome e Principe\1\.................     0.001        0.01           
Senegal................................     0.001        0.01           
Seychelles.............................     0.001        0.01           
Sierra Leone\1\........................     0.001        0.01           
Solomon Islands\1\.....................     0.001        0.01           
Somalia\1\.............................     0.001        0.01           
Sudan\1\...............................     0.001        0.01           
Surinam................................     0.001        0.01           
Togo\1\................................     0.001        0.01           
Uganda\1\..............................     0.001        0.01           
U. Rep. of Tanzania\1\.................     0.001        0.01           
Varuaiu\1\.............................     0.001        0.01           
Yemen\1\...............................     0.001        0.01           
Zimbabwe...............................     0.001        0.01           
                                        --------------------------------
      Subtotal group D.................     0.056        0.56           
      Grand total......................    100.00    \3\99.51           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Included in the list of least developed countries.                   
\2\Figures are net of deductions for Bosnia/Harcegovina, Croatia,       
  Slovenia, and The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.              
\3\Slovakia and the Czech Republic have been temporarily excluded from  
  the peacekeeping scale, pending a decision on whether to place them in
  Group B or Group C. Their Regular Budget assessments are 0.19% and    
  0.42% respectively. Thus the Regular Budget scale of assessments      
  actually adds to 100.06%.                                             

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would love to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very interesting point. Does he 
realize this amendment only takes 2 to 2\1/2\ percent of these 
peacekeeping costs for this purpose while it cuts the FBI, the Border 
Patrol, the cops on the street, the DEA agents, and all of those other 
programs funded in the Justice Department and in the Commerce 
Department, instead of focusing on the target that the gentleman from 
New York thinks is so tempting?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me reclaim my time and say that the gentleman makes 
an excellent point, and that is why at the end of my little debate here 
he will see what I am driving at.
  Let me tell you something: Belgium, with a population of only 10 
million people, pays a higher assessment than does China. But that is 
typical of the kind of problem we have run into when in the formulation 
and conduct of U.S. foreign policy it is subcontracted out to 
multilateral organizations. That is exactly what we are doing here with 
all this peacekeeping business.
  Mr. Chairman, this list goes on and on. By my count there are 153 
members of the United Nations and each pays less than one-fifth of 1 
percent of the peacekeeping budget.
  Some 56 of these members pay only one-thousandth of 1 percent. Mr. 
Chairman, this misguided reliance on multilateralism as a substitute 
for clear-headed U.S. policy has got to stop.
  Support the Rogers amendment, which will be coming up at the end when 
we establish a new section. That is what we ought to be doing, what the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] is driving at. Support the 
Rogers amendment and I will go along with you.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Condit-
Thurman amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really ill-conceived. I think the 
Members must fully understand the consequences of this across-the-board 
cut. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary to explain the 
Crime Control Fund and how we funded the Crime Bill in this bill and 
what it does for Members.
  So let me attempt to do that.
  The Crime Control Fund amounts to $2.4 billion, Mr. Chairman. Out of 
that $2.4 billion we were asked by the administration, among other 
things, to fund Community Policing, we were asked to fund and upgrade 
criminal history records, we were asked to fund the President's 
immigration initiative which included controlling the border, expedited 
deportation provisions, asylum reform provisions, and other crime-
control initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, as the committee approached this challenge, we decided 
that we would try to fund the Crime Bill in a way that put resources 
into the line, that beefed up our front line of defense against crime. 
The first challenge of course was community policing. This is a very 
strong priority, a high priority of the President and certainly most 
Members in this body.
  The President asked $1.7 billion to fund that. We were able to fund 
it I think very generously at $1.3 billion. These funds will put 
another 39,000 policemen, federally funded, into our communities, in 
that Community Policing Program, the ``cops on the beat'' program, if 
you will.
  We also looked at how we could beef up that front line, reinforce it. 
We funded almost 1,000 additional Border Patrol on the line to try to 
help stem the influx of illegal aliens into our country. And to do that 
at the point that they enter this country. That increase is on top of a 
600-person Border Patrol increase last year.
  That was only one of the immigration initiatives. In addition, we 
funded very generously the expedited deportation, increasing the number 
of administrative law judges and judges to consider the cases of the 
challenges to undocumented aliens.
  We also did likewise for asylum reform so that we could expedite 
consideration of asylum cases.
  Now in the process of doing that, very importantly, we received on 
one petition, I think, 120 Members of Congress signing a petition to 
restore the Byrne Grant Program, Mr. Chairman, an extremely popular 
program because it has been effective. It is a discretionary grant 
program, formula grant to the States and then discretionary on the part 
of the governors, to fund efforts to coordinate drug enforcement task 
forces. Extremely popular, extremely effective program.
  We were asked by Members all across this House to restore and 
increase that funding for the Byrne Program. A majority of the Members 
of the House contacted us requesting that we restore funding for the 
Byrne Program.
  We have done that. We have looked at these challenges and our budget 
allocation and funded this in a way that gives us the greatest budget 
authority and outlays in fashioning this bill. The way we did it was by 
increasing the Byrne Grant Program through an expanded Byrne Grant.
  The way it was funded, Mr. Chairman, it doubles the amount of money 
each and every congressional district, in each and every State gets for 
the Byrne Program.
  For example, just picking a State, the first State on the list, 
Alabama: Under the 1994 Byrne Program, Alabama was allocated at $5.827 
million. Under the Expanded Byrne Program, Alabama receives a 125-
percent increase to $13 million, an increase of $7,264,000 for the 
Byrne Grant Program.
  Now in developing the expanded Byrne Grant Program, we included a 
part of the President's request for incarceration of illegal aliens, 
$150 million, and we included the traditional Byrne Grant Program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Mollohan was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we included in the Byrne Grant Program 
not only the traditional 21 jurisdictions in the Byrne Grant Program 
but also the incarceration of illegal aliens and the upgrading of 
criminal history records.
  By doing that we were able to get about $200 million more into the 
Crime Control Fund than we otherwise could have because of the BA/
outlay challenge that we have. The Byrne Grant Program outlays at 22 
percent, incarceration of illegal aliens outlays at 75 percent. By 
incorporating all of those programs within the Expanded Byrne Program 
we were scored at 22 percent outlays, which allowed us to put about 
$200 million more into crime-fighting than we otherwise would be able 
to do.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is offered by Mr. Condit, on which 
he has spoken, requires an across-the-board cut of the total bill and 
then funnel that money into incarceration of illegal aliens; $600 
million I believe in rough numbers is the amount of money he is going 
to take out of all the other parts of the bill.
  Now that is going to create a lot of mischief and damage to much of 
the bill that I want to articulate and speak to in just a moment.
  Now there are a lot of programs in this bill that we are not fully 
funding. In fact, almost all of the programs in this bill we are not 
fully funding; even the crime-control programs. We would like to have 
6,000 Border Patrol but we cannot afford it in this bill.
  I submit to you that we cannot afford to fully fund illegal aliens no 
matter how meritorious the arguments of the States are. We received 
this request from the President in an amendment to his original budget. 
He requested $350 million. He is the first President to ask for funding 
for incarcerating illegal aliens. We are the first subcommittee to fund 
such a request of illegal aliens. Arguably we could not fully fund it, 
but we did provide funds for it in the expanded Byrne Program. If it is 
funded outside the expanded Byrne Program, it will take about $200 
million out of crime fighting in the bill.
  Now the way Mr. Condit has done it is not that way. He is having an 
across-the-board cut. That means instead of every State getting 125 
percent more Byrne Grant money every State will get less Byrne Grant 
money by 2.3 percent. In addition, where the Committee increases the 
funding for the FBI, approximately 130-some agents, where we increase 
funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration, increase funding for 
the Marshals' Service, increase funding for the enhancement of our 
Border Patrol, every one of those accounts, those on the line, fighting 
crime in the streets, will be cut in order to fund incarceration of 
illegal aliens, which we cannot afford to fund at the full level we 
have been asked to do it.
  I would implore Members to remember all those Members who asked us to 
enhance funding for the Byrne Grant Program, and appreciate our efforts 
to do so and in the process of doing it incorporated a program to fund 
as best we could the incarceration of illegal alien requests.
  Mr. Chairman, I will speak to the specific accounts that are cut by 
the Condit-Thurman amendment a bit later in the debate. But I strongly 
rise in opposition to it, point out to Members that it will be to the 
disadvantage of each and every State in the Union as far as the Byrne 
Grant Program goes and will benefit only really California, if you 
assume a funding level of $150 million, but if you assume $600 million 
funding for incarceration of illegal aliens, seven States will be the 
only beneficiaries and every other State in the Union will lose 
significantly.

                              {time}  2140

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that from this 
point forward all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto 
close in 20 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, if the 
gentleman takes out his time since, he just spent 10 minutes on his 
side of the issue, then I will not object.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I consciously did that because those who 
were supporting the amendment had done likewise, had taken about 10 
minutes, so I thought that that would be acceptable.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we had one speaker who took 5 minutes, 
and he yielded time, so if the gentleman would take 5 minutes out of 
his time, then I would not object.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry; those speaking for the amendment had very 
close to, but not quite exactly, 10 minutes.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are considering the crime bill, and, if we look, and 
I heard the figures, and I would like to dispute the figures because 
the gentleman from California said there is 18,000. If it includes 
aliens, it may be correct, but California has approximately 16,000 
illegal aliens. Maybe the 18,000 included aliens. In the United States 
there is almost 84,000 aliens. Most of those are illegal, but some are 
in this country legally, and they have committed crimes, and they are 
in there also. But if he did not have those numbers in the jail, in the 
crime bill we are building new prisons. Think of the money we can save 
if we did not have them in our jails or at least if they were paid for, 
and I would like to thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, he is absolutely correct. He supported us with 600 
Border Patrol, another thousand. We want 6,000. That is the best way to 
stop them at the border, and I thank the Chairman for doing that. But 
if my colleagues take a look, we are talking about States' dollars, and 
let me give an example:
  Committee on Education and Labor, Federal dollars that go to 
education, we only give about 5 percent. California spends 95 percent 
of all State money to education. In fact, we only give them 5 percent. 
By law 40 percent of that budget has to go to education. Governor 
Wilson has asked for $4 billion to reimburse us for illegal 
immigration, which the 16,000 is a portion of that, Mr. Chairman. I 
say, ``If you start off with $4 billion less than your account, then 
you're going to have less for education, for police and so on. If you 
take a look at those costs nationwide, that equates to almost $37 
billion, and let me repeat that, $37 billion nationwide.''
  Now we are also trying to fund a health care bill. Take 5 years of 
$37 billion. We can fund any health care bill that comes up before us, 
and the gentleman may turn down this amendment, but I would ask for the 
support in dealing with a problem that we have of illegal immigration 
because it is not just law enforcement. The education costs, the health 
care costs, the welfare costs, and this is why we see so much debate on 
the issue itself.
  California immigration, along with the other States, is not becoming 
just a border State problem. Take a look in each and every one of our 
States, and when the gentleman says it is going to cost money out of 
this committee, our point is, and he has helped us with the Border 
Patrol, that if this government mandates that we take care of illegal 
immigrants in our prison systems, and health care and the rest of it, 
and they cannot afford it, then they need to change their policy.
  Governor Wilson 2 weeks ago asked and talked to the Senate. They 
said, ``Governor, we would love to help you, but we don't have any 
money to help you.'' If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, then the 
Federal Government needs to change its policies, and even though the 
gentleman may not support this amendment, I would ask his help in 
supporting and helping us with illegal immigration problems, not only 
in the State of California, but nationwide.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I again ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes 
and that that time be equally divided between the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and myself.
  Maybe there is some sense that we are at a more equal point, and 
there may be more receptivity for such a unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could 
the gentleman tell me how this might affect motions to rise, motions to 
recommit?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it has 
absolutely nothing to do with it. I would submit to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] that it has nothing to do 
with that. We are simply limiting debate on this amendment after we 
have already had a bit of debate.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request to limit the time of 
debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Condit] is agreed to, and, as I understand it, the limitation will be 
20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side with the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] sharing his time with the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]. The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] will 
control the other 10 minutes.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

                              {time}  2150

  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me first respond to the gentleman 
from West Virginia a little bit here on some of his remarks.
  Actually, in our count we found that most of our law enforcement 
actually around this country is supporting this amendment, because they 
see this is an issue of incarceration. And all the cops on the beat, 
and everything else you can have, actually does not allow them to 
incarcerate anybody, because their prisons are overflowing and they 
need these dollars to reimburse themselves to have more.
  Let me remind the House on April 20 we actually passed the Beilenson-
Berman-Condit-Thurman amendment by a vote of 403 to 22, in fact saying 
that we believe that we should in fact reimburse States for 
incarcerating criminal aliens.
  Let me also remind you that in the Byrne amendment, we are not taking 
any money our except for the 2.5 percent we do across the board for 
everybody. That means that the increase that we went from $358 million 
to $804 million takes the same 2.5 cut as every other cut is taken in 
this, not destroying or hurting any of those States that were talked 
about.
  Instead of getting 125 percent, they get 122 percent. I think that is 
a small portion to give back to those States who have been doing this 
burden.
  Plus, remembering that the Byrne program in fact was never intended 
to be a reimbursement program for illegal alien criminals to put them 
in jail, it actually was used for another thing.
  Let me also suggest to you something that really bothers me: Before I 
was here, this Congress, and the Congress before us, made a commitment 
under a 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, to reimburse 
States for the problems that have been caused by the Federal Government 
through their policy, not through the State's policy.
  Are we going to once again do what we have been doing and renege on 
exactly what we have said that we were going to do over the last years? 
Because we have not funded that one either.
  So I am asking this House and my colleagues from those States, one, 
that have the same problems that Florida does, to please support us in 
this amendment, but, second, to remind States who are siting here 
today, you may not have the problem today, but you could have it 
tomorrow, and you may be coming and asking us for the same help.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to provide $600 million 
specifically to reimburse States for costs of incarcerating criminal 
aliens. The amendment funds this program by a 2.5 percent across-the-
board reduction in the remainder of the bill. We do this for several 
reasons.
  On April 20, the House approved the amendment authorizing reimbursing 
for incarcerating criminal aliens in an en bloc amendment that was 
adopted by a vote of 402-22. We believe that $600 million is needed to 
fully fund this program in fiscal year 1994.
  The administration earlier this year submitted a budget amendment to 
fund a portion of this program, but the Appropriations Committee 
rejected this request. The committee did include $804.3 million for 
Byrne formula grant programs and added reimbursement for incarcerating 
criminal aliens as a new purpose. This compares to the $358 million in 
fiscal year 1994. I want to acknowledge the recognition of a problem by 
the administration and the committee. I am indeed grateful.
  But, the Byrne program is not the place for this funding. We believe 
that reimbursement--like the immigration policy that necessitates it--
is a separate Federal responsibility; in fact it is authorized 
separately under section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
  States will be forced to choose between reimbursement for criminal 
aliens and other legitimate law enforcement programs. The additional 
$446 million easily could be used for other purposes, such as improved 
rural law enforcement, more urban police, and improved suburban street 
safety.
  The committee report states that ``these funds [are] to be 
distributed to the States under the formula currently mandated for the 
Edward Byrne Formula Grant Program.'' In order words, States with no 
criminal alien population get a share of this larger pie but will not 
have to choose between spending the funds on incarcerated aliens or 
other law enforcement programs.
  I also fear that, without a separate appropriations, reimbursement 
will be lost in the federal bureaucracy. About 6 years ago, Congress 
appropriated money for the immigration emergency fund created in 1986. 
We are still awaiting the regulations to allow States to use this 
money. I do not want this new program to become another one of those 
that are funded but never implemented.
  When it came to funding reimbursement, we considered reducing those 
programs to which the committee gave more than the budget request, 
including several outside the Justice Department. But, we concluded it 
would be easier for each agency to absorb a minor reduction.
  Some have asked why we are not exempting other Justice Department 
programs from this reduction. Our answer it this: Many if not most of 
these incarcerated aliens are in this country because of some action or 
inaction by the United States. It was not unreasonable to include 
legislation to address this problem in the crime bill, and it is not 
unfair to require INS or the State Department to assume a portion of 
the cost in this bill.
  With regard to the Byrne program, the modest $20.1 million reduction 
could be considered the incarcerated alien portion of the $446 million 
increase. It also leaves $784.2 million for State law enforcement 
programs under Byrne. Therefore, States without incarcerated criminal 
aliens do not lose under our amendment. They will receive the increased 
Byrne funding.
  Since this amendment was drafted, Mr. Chairman, I have heard from 
groups in my State that might received less funding for their 
particular programs. This arguments can be summarized in one sentence: 
How can you reduce this program or that Federal responsibility by 2.5 
percent? I am not insensitive to their concerns. But, this is only the 
first step in our process. When I reviewed the committee report, I 
noted appropriations of about $300 million above the budget request. 
Savings here could offset our reduction and protect programs in Florida 
and elsewhere. More importantly, however, for a long time I have been 
convinced that the problem of criminal aliens also is a federal 
responsibility that has been ignored for too many years.
  Without a separate line, reimbursement could become subject to 
pressures from other programs within and outside the Justice Department 
budget. The only way to ensure that states receive the reimbursement to 
which they are entitled is to adopt our amendment.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this funding comes from money 
that came from our constituents. It is their money that will be 
returned to the States to cover other taxes that the people now are 
paying to incarcerate criminal aliens. They did not ask to pay higher 
taxes to cover increased State costs associated with these criminal 
aliens. But, they deserve this relief.
  Finally, it may be a problem in my State this year, but it could be 
your problem in a few years. That is one reason why everybody should 
support this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dixon], the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee of the District of Columbia of the Committee on 
Appropriations, for a colloquy.
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that for the first 
time this program has been funded at least partially. It was authorized 
in 1986, and, under the Clinton administration and the leadership of 
the subcommittee, for the first time we have provided funds for 
reimbursement.
  I am pleased that we are here today at least talking about a first 
step forward.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  (Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from California and the chairman in their 
colloquy.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may ask the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  If I may ask the gentleman, it is my understanding that the $804 
million appropriation for the expanded Byrne program is to be 
distributed to States under the formula currently mandated for the 
Edward Byrne Formula Grant Program.
  Is it true that it will be up to the States' Governors to use their 
discretion in using these funds for the costs of incarcerating 
undocumented felons, or for other purposes such as law enforcement or 
drug prevention programs? I would appreciate the Chairman's comments.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. As the gentleman stated, the committee had a very 
difficult time trying to provide adequate funding for all of the 
requested programs within a 602(b) budget allocation that was $1.2 
billion below the President's request. The super Byrne program allowed 
the committee to maximize the budget authority available to fund items 
in the crime bill while staying within our outlay allocation. And you 
are correct that the Governors may use their discretion in using the 
super Byrne funds for the incarceration of undocumented felons, or for 
other purposes such as law enforcement or drug prevention programs.
  I would note that if a separate appropriation for incarceration of 
illegal aliens were to be carved out of the crime bill funding, then, 
in order to remain within our 602(b) outlay allocation, the committee 
would be forced to make significant reductions.
  It is absolutely true that under the Byrne program, the governors of 
the states have discretion to fund incarceration of illegal aliens, the 
traditional Byrne grant program in the 21 jurisdictions, or the Brady 
bill, and any combination of all of them The gentleman is absolutely 
correct.
  Mr. DIXON. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk to the Members on this side of the 
aisle for a moment. You like to vote for these across-the-board cuts, I 
know that, and you like to do it because you think you are cutting the 
deficit. And I have joined you on many of those.
  But hear me out now. This money is not going to cut the deficit. This 
money is going to just seven states. All 43 of the rest of you, I am 
sorry, you are going to get cut. How are you going to get cut? Your 
Byrne grant programs that fund your local police forces are going to 
get cut by this amendment. Hear me out. Mark it down. That is what is 
does.
  Number two, this amendments cuts the FBI agents in your area, in your 
district, in your state. It cuts them. It cuts the drug enforcement 
agents on the street in your district. That is what this amendment 
does.
  This amendment would cut prison construction funds, delaying 
construction. It would delay activation of new prisons next year. It 
would cut the attorneys representing indigent defendants in your 
courts. We would not have the money to pay for the defense of indigent 
defendants after August of 1995 if this amendment passes.
  You would not have the money to pay the jurors in your civil trials 
in your courthouses in August 1995. That is what this amendment does.
  The money goes to just seven states. And, yes, they need some money 
for these costs of jailing incarcerated aliens. There are other ways to 
do that. Do not penalize the 43 states that would be hurt under this 
amendment.
  So I urge Members, there is another way to this, and you will hear it 
before the night is over. But do not penalize the FBI, the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, the prisons, the prosecutors, the jurors, the 
criminal indigent defendants' defense. That is what this amendment will 
do. Do not think you are cutting funds to cut the deficit. No, this 
money goes to just seven states, and the rest of you are out of the 
picture.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Harman.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Condit-
Thurman amendment to reimburse State and local governments for the cost 
of incarcerating illegal aliens. This measure is sorely needed and I 
urge its adoption. I heard the last Speaker, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], talk about police chiefs.
  Police chiefs in my district, the South Bay of Los Angeles, have 
asked the Federal Government to reimburse California for the heavy 
costs of incarcerating illegal aliens. They have called for these 
payments to be provided as new funding, not siphoned away from existing 
crime-fighting programs. I stand with the chiefs.
  A recent report on immigration by the Urban Institute found ``serious 
questions about institutional capacity, fiscal fairness, and the 
direction of immigration policy,'' due to the fact that ``most revenues 
from immigrants and natives alike flow to the Federal treasury, whereas 
services are the responsibility of local (and State) governments. This 
disparity has intensified over the past decade, as Federal support for 
the few Federal programs targeted to immigrants and to the communities 
in which they settle has declined sharply.''
  I agree with the sponsors of this amendment that when the Federal 
Government fails to ensure that immigrants enter legally, it must bear 
the consequences of its failure. With a criminal alien population fast 
approaching 18,000 inmates, at an annual cost of $375 million, 
California can no longer foot the bill for Federal failure to curb 
illegal immigration. Nor can other heavily impacted States.
  During consideration of the crime bill, I supported the Berman-
Condit-Beilenson amendment to provide mandatory reimbursement to the 
States for costs incurred for the incarceration of illegal aliens. This 
amendment delivers on that requirement. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment. I am in opposition because I do believe this amendment, if 
adopted, would set aside the fine work of the subcommittee in improving 
funding for law enforcement. Earlier in this debate, I had opposition 
to one particular provision in the subcommittee bill. I felt that the 
antitrust division was raised too high in comparison with the U.S. 
attorneys who prosecute violent crimes of serious drug offenses. 
Nevertheless, I want to acknowledge that the subcommittee did improve 
the funding not only for the Byrne Grant Program but also for the FBI 
and for the Drug Enforcement Administration. That is why this amendment 
should be rejected.
  However, I want to say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], 
his point is well made, if we do not, as the Federal Government, keep 
our responsibility to assist the states who have the expense of 
incarcerating those individuals for crimes who should not be in the 
country in the first place, if we do not do it through this amendment, 
we will have to find some other way to do it in the budgetary process.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Ortiz].
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from Florida.
  When we talk about the front lines, I used to be there. I used to be 
the sheriff of Nueces County in Corpus Christi. For many years we have 
seen the local taxpayers and the local government trying to fight crime 
that affects the Nation at the local level. When we talk about 43 other 
states, and I can understand that, but the other 43 states do not have 
the problem that we have in the border states.
  My state of Texas jails over 3,000 criminal aliens at a cost to State 
and local taxpayers of over $56 million a year.
  Some Members might think that we are talking about people from 
Mexico. No. We have something else known as OTM's, Other Than Mexican, 
coming across the border. In my district alone, illegal aliens 
represent 80 countries coming through my district. I think it is time 
that we do something to alleviate and help local government help the 
states.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Condit amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and want to 
compliment him on the job he has done here.
  I think that we have to provide money to deal with the incarceration 
of illegal aliens and, in fact, have worked very hard on the crime bill 
to see it there. But I could not think of a more wrong-headed way to go 
about doing it.
  If we are going to gut the FBI 818 personnel, if we are going to gut 
the DEA 160 new agents, if we are going to take away from the INS money 
for Border Patrol and money, even more importantly, to deal with the 
asylees who are coming into this country and unjustly claiming asylum, 
we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  This is no way to find money for a worthy cause. I would certainly 
support an amendment that would take some of the pork and some of the 
less needed things to deal with these issues. But these cuts across the 
board kill us.
  When the FBI was cut, we heard an outcry from law enforcement across 
the country. The committee voted to restore it. We cannot, we cannot 
rob Peter to pay Paul in this wrong-headed amendment.
  I urge its defeat. It would greatly hurt crime fighting in America. I 
urge its defeat.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Schenk].
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say that the chairman 
of the subcommittee and the committee members have done solomon-like 
work in this particular appropriation. Sometimes we do feel like we are 
robbing Peter to pay Paul. I wish that we could go into other 
appropriations for this money because there certainly is opportunity. 
But unfortunately, the budget process here does not allow for that. We 
certainly need a budget reform process that would allow for it. But as 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] pointed out, several weeks 
ago voted overwhelmingly to require the Federal Government to reimburse 
the States for the cost of incarcerating undocumented felons. This is a 
long overdue commitment.
  California does not set immigration policy, and my community of San 
Diego does not run the Border Patrol. Yet my State and my county pick 
up the tab when Federal immigration strategy fails.
  For those who say that this affects only seven States, let me point 
out that those seven States contain probably a third of the population 
of this country.
  Reimbursement is fair. It is the right thing to do. The choice really 
is simple. Either we do what is necessary to provide reimbursement, or 
we once again renege on our obligation.
  This amendment is a reasonable attempt to reimburse the States that 
are suffering from undocumented felony shock. It is time to help them, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the Condit-Thurman amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am from California. I am from the state 
most heavily impacted by the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens. I am 
from the Los Angeles area, which has had massive impacts from this 
issue.
  The only thing worse than doing nothing about this issue, and the 
gentleman from West Virginia has not done nothing. He has provided the 
first real money for this effort of anybody in all the years that I and 
the Governor of California served in this body have ever done. But the 
only thing worse than that is to strip half the increases in the Border 
Patrol, thereby creating the conditions in which there will be more 
criminal aliens.
  I will be darned if I am going back to Los Angeles to say, I cut back 
on the cops in the street in the most under-policed, undermanned city 
in the United States of America in order to help a governor solve his 
budget crisis problems. I would love to do it. We did it in an 
amendment to try and create an entitlement program for automatic 
reimbursements.
  I would suggest that when the crime bill, in fiscal year 1996, starts 
to fund prisons, the first dollar of that money go to the States which 
have been impacted by illegal aliens. But I am not going to vote to 
take it from the Border Patrol. I am not going to vote to take it from 
cops in the street. I am not going to vote to take it from cuts 
throughout the whole law enforcement community. That makes no sense. 
That is not what we are trying to do here.
  I urge a no vote on the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Condit-
Thurman amendment.
  This legislation provides for a 2.5 percent across the board cut in 
spending in the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations 
bill to provide much needed funds to reimburse states for the costs of 
incarcerating criminal aliens.
  The State of California incarcerates a disproportionate number of 
criminal aliens. In fact, California incarcerates 55 percent of all 
criminal aliens in the United States. At an annual cost of $18,000 per 
year, per inmate, California and the other disproportionately impacted 
States can not afford to continue to provide for this unreimbursed 
expense.
  This amendment does not propose to spend additional taxpayer money, 
rather it is funded by cutting other programs and projects. It is a 
responsible measure that is owed to the States which must enforce 
Federal immigration and judiciary policy but which have not received 
adequate Federal reimbursement for the cost of implementing those 
policies.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment on 
several different points: the point that has already been made, that 
the Federal Government is not doing its job to protect the borders of 
these United States. It is one of the highest priorities of the Federal 
Government to protect the borders of the United States. We are not 
doing it. The Federal Government acknowledged its responsibility to 
reimburse the States for all these costs by passing section 501 of the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, funding does 
not seem to find its way to take care of these very vital problems in 
these States.
  It is more than seven States. These are States in which over 2 
percent of the prison population are criminal aliens. They include 
anything from Alaska to Washington. There are 18 States, from our 
figures, that would participate in these funds.
  Even though we have to do it in a draconian way of making cuts across 
the board, the point here is that the Federal Government is doing a lot 
of other things that they should not be doing and that should be left 
to the States. But they are not doing the one thing that they should be 
doing, and that is protecting our borders and protecting our States 
against illegal aliens in the commission of crimes in these States.
  I urge support of the amendment.

                              {time}  2210

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 1 minute 
remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] has 30 seconds 
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on this amendment, which would cut 43 
States and give the money to just 7. It would also cut the law 
enforcement Federal agencies of every one of the 50 States. I do not 
think any one of us wants that, in this year when the war on crime is 
uppermost in the minds of the people in our towns and counties and 
cities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a note vote on the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, very quickly, although I believe there is a great need 
to fund these programs that have gone unreimbursed for years, the 
Federal Government does have a responsibility. I do not believe the way 
to do this is to have the meat axe approach of cutting across the board 
on programs that are very worthwhile and are needed by our law 
enforcement agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote to this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].
  (Mr. TUCKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of my colleagues, the gentlemen from California [Mr. Berman and 
Mr. Becerra]. This is a good concept, but the wrong way of doing it. 
Certainly we cannot borrow from Peter to pay Paul.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the debate and appreciate the good 
arguments made with regard to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to close the debate by pointing out to the 
Members that we worked extremely, extremely hard to be responsive to 
their requests to fully fund the Byrne Grants, and we, I think, did 
that in a way that maximizes our dollars for law enforcement.
  I would point out, in reiterating some of what has been said, that 
the Members should please ponder carefully before they vote for this 
amendment. In voting for this amendment, Members are voting for an 818-
FTE reduction to FBI agents and FBI support personnel, and Members 
would be voting to decrease by 160 new FBI agents. Members would be 
cutting 132 new DEA agents. Members would be cutting $13 million 
recommended for Immigration and Naturalization Service initiatives, 
which equates to eliminating over half of the enhancement of $54 
million put in to hire 700 new Border Patrol agents. We would be 
cutting that in half. We do not want to do that.
  There has been some discussion about funding for U.S. Attorneys. This 
amendment would reduce by another 200 the number of U.S. Attorneys.
  We would be reducing $6 million of the proposed increase for 
fisheries management. There was so much testimony on that.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does damage throughout this bill. I urge 
its rejection by the body.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] has expired.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to wrap it up real quick.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just tell the Members, this is not a meat axe 
approach. This is 2.5 percent across the board. This budget has a $300-
million increase in it. This is $2.5 million across the board.
  When we give that $600 million to the local law enforcement people, 
they will show us how to fight crime. They will keep people in jail and 
they will hire police officers on the street. That is what we are 
talking about. We are talking about giving them the discretion to hire 
people to fight crime, to build prisons, or to keep people in jail.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a modest cut. It goes a long way in helping 
States and local governments, and those people that do come from those 
States, it may be them next time. The States have no options. The 
Federal Government is in control of the immigration policy. I ask for 
an aye vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 256, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 287]

                               AYES--148

     Ackerman
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Bonilla
     Brooks
     Browder
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Filner
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kyl
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Machtley
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Parker
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Ravenel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Byrne
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Bachus (AL)
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Swift
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2234

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. McCloskey against.

  Mrs. MALONEY, Messrs. QUILLEN, MYERS of Indiana, HUTCHINSON, VOLKMER, 
PAXON, and KLUG, Ms. KAPTUR, and Mr. ROWLAND changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title VI? If not, 
the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Title VII--Fiscal Year 1994 Supplemental Appropriations

       The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, namely:


            chapter i--emergency supplemental appropriations

                     Small business administration

                     Disaster loans program account

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster Loans Program 
     Account'' for the cost of direct loans for the Northridge 
     earthquake and other disasters and associated administrative 
     expenses, $400,000,000, which shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for a specific dollar 
     amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of this 
     amount, not to exceed $135,000,000 is for administrative 
     expenses of such loans: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                      department of transportation

                     Federal highway administration

                          Federal-aid highways

       Under the head, ``Federal-Aid Highways, Emergency Relief 
     Program (Highway Trust Fund)'' in title I of Public Law 103-
     211, delete beginning after ``$950,000,000;'' through ``by 
     the President to the Congress, all''.


      chapter ii--supplemental appropriations department of state

              International organizations and conferences

        Contributions for international peacekeeping operations

       For an additional amount for ``Contributions for 
     International Peacekeeping Operations'', $670,000,000 to be 
     available for obligation and expenditure through September 
     30, 1994: Provided, That 50 percent of this amount shall be 
     withheld from obligation and expenditure pursuant to section 
     401(a)(3) of Public Law 103-236 until a certification is made 
     pursuant to section 401(b) of said Act.


                    amendment offered by mr. rogers

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: At the end of the bill, 
     add the following new title:

  Title VIII--Additional General Provisions, Transferring Funds From 
International Peacekeeping Payments to U.N. to Reimbursement to States 
  for Costs of Incarcerating Illegal Aliens and Community Policing at 
                                  Home

       Sec. 801. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the accounts ``Contributions for International Peacekeeping 
     Activities'' for fiscal year 1995 and the additional amount 
     for ``Contributions for International Peacekeeping 
     Operations'' for fiscal year 1994 in this Act are hereby 
     reduced by $94,732,000 and $119,013,000 respectively and of 
     those amounts, $87,500,000 are hereby transferred to 
     reimburse states for fiscal year 1995 for costs of 
     incarcerating illegal aliens as authorized by section 501 of 
     the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended (8 
     U.S.C. 1365) and $119,000,000 to programs for fiscal year 
     1994 authorized by Chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of title 
     I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 
     as amended, for an aggregate reduction of $7,245,000 in the 
     amounts otherwise provided by this Act for fiscal years 1994 
     and 1995.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we would 
have to object at this time. We would reconsider it in a few minutes 
maybe, but let the gentleman make his presentation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could hear at least the 
discussion on my motion from the distinguished minority ranking member?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman did not make a motion. He made a 
unanimous consent request which was objected to.
  Objection is heard.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Would the gentleman be inclined to consider the request 
at a future time or at a different time? Would 40 minutes be something 
more attractive?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like the gentleman to make 
his presentation and then let us talk about it and try to be reasonable 
about it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, let me mention first the 
main issue here, crime, it is strangling our communities. Every year 24 
million Americans are the victims of violent crime.
  The rate of violent crime in the country is the worst of any 
developed country. Our cities are crying for help, help to put more 
cops on the street, help to ease the burden of the illegal aliens 
crowding their prisons, as we have just heard.
  Our communities are demanding action. Our President is demanding 
action.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have said previously, overall I strongly support 
this bill. The gentleman from West Virginia has done yeoman's work to 
balance some very high priorities in very, very tight fiscal times 
including the war on crime.

                              {time}  2240

  But despite his best efforts and that of the subcommittee, this bill 
still falls short in two important programs in our fight on the war on 
crime.
  Due to our fiscal constraints, this bill does not fully fund the 
President's request for more cops on the street. The bill is $368 
million short. Nor does this bill fully fund the President's request 
for relief for States struggling with the burden of jailing illegal 
aliens. The question is why? Why did we fail a little short in the war 
on crime and repaying States for jailing illegal aliens? Because other 
items in the bill; namely, the demands of the United Nations in sending 
the American people a 31.7-percent share of the peacekeeping costs, are 
limiting our ability to wage the war on crime. It is that simple. This 
bill contains $1.2 billion to pay for the costs for the bills the 
United Nations is sending the American taxpayer for peacekeeping. This 
bill includes $222 million for expected fiscal 1995 requirements. But 
more telling is the $958 million included to partially pay for a fiscal 
1994 charge the United Nations says we owe for arrearages. That is to 
say, past costs. A bill they say is now $1.1 billion.
  This includes a $670 million fiscal 1994 supplemental appropriations 
embedded in the 1995 bill. Why is the bill so high? Because the United 
States pays too much. Let me show you why. In the chart over on the far 
side you will see the relative charges for all the major nations that 
contribute to the United Nations for peacekeeping operations. This 
chart will show you how much the United States has to pay: 31.7 
percent. The next highest contributor is Japan, at 12.5 percent; the 
next is Germany, our poor friend in Europe, that only pay 8.9 percent. 
Guess where China places? Less than 1 percent of the total peacekeeping 
costs. And they are a member of the Security Council, with full veto 
powers.
  Our share is too much. And where has that led us? In the last few 
years our bill has grown to $1.5 billion in fiscal 1994; just 3 years 
ago, $141 million, just 6 years $29 million. We had to cut the State 
Department's budget request this year. Why? Because of the peacekeeping 
charges that we were sent. It is eating up the bill.
  We must do something about it.
  Our allies simply do not pay enough. What do they pay? I just showed 
you. Is it fair? Of course it is not. Can we afford to pay this 
payment? The answer is of course ``no.'' We did not pay it last year 
and we cannot pay it this year.
  My colleagues, peacekeeping is a runaway fiscal train that is on a 
direct collision course headed for our critical domestic programs.
  Just 6 years ago, we paid a mere $30 million. the price tag for 
fiscal 1994, $1.5 billion. It is time the Congress says enough is 
enough. History has proven that the only time the United Nations 
listens to the United States is when Uncle Sam pulls on the purse 
strings.
  It is time the Congress told the United Nations that we will no 
longer pay an unfair share.
  The time to act is now.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the time to act is now. This fall the 
United Nations will set their budget for a 3-year term and they will 
set us in concrete at this rate unless we act now.
  Mr. Chairman, our cities cannot afford to wait. How can any of us go 
back to our constituents and tell them we do not have the money to 
fight the war on crime when we can continue to pay more than our fair 
share at the United Nations? My amendment would solve the problem. It 
would allow us to fulfill our commitment to the United Nations, but 
more importantly, to fulfill our commitment to the American people, to 
start peacekeeping in the United States as well as peacekeeping around 
the world.
  Very simply, my amendment reduces the amount of funding provided in 
the bill to the level we all agree is a fair share for U.N. 
peacekeeping, 25 percent, freeing up over $200 million in savings that 
would be used to keep peace on American streets. The amendment would 
use these savings to provide a $119 million fiscal 1994 supplemental to 
hire 1,600 more police on the beat in America. The Department of 
Justice already has pending 2,471 applications from States to hire 
almost 10,000 police officers. My amendment would allow us to hire 
1,600 before the end of fiscal 1994.
  If we can vote for a $550 million supplemental for the United 
Nations, we can vote for $119 million to put peacekeepers on the 
streets here at home.
  The other portion of the amendment--listen, California, Texas, 
Pennsylvania, Illinois, all you seven States--my amendment would 
provide $88 million to those States who are saddled with the burden of 
jailing illegal aliens, committing crimes in their communities. If you 
can send money to the United Nations, we can send money to the States 
burdened and struggling with the skyrocketing costs of housing aliens 
in their jails. My amendment allows the Congress to make a clear 
choice: Do you continue to pay more than your fair share to the United 
Nations, or do you put 1,600 cops on the streets in this country, 
peacekeeping in America? Do you continue to pay more than your fair 
share in the United Nations, or do we help, California, Texas, Arizona, 
New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, and others who are saddled 
with these extra costs?
  My amendment is a vote for peacekeeping at the United Nations in a 
fair way and peacekeeping in America in a fair way, and I urge the 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I want 
to submit to the committee that this is an extremely important 
amendment, perhaps the most important one offered here tonight. The 
ranking minority member of our committee, for whom I have the highest 
esteem, has crafted an amendment that will mean a thoughtful choice to 
be made by Members. But I submit, that after going through the thought 
process, the Members will, in strong numbers, oppose it.
  Madam Chairwoman, in my opening remarks introducing this bill, which 
was on Thursday of last week, I asked all Members to look at our 
committee report at page 114 through page 117, and then on more detail 
to other pages. The report goes into great detail because we knew that 
this was an important issue to the Members and one they would want to 
be fully informed about. We set out in detail the factual history 
behind peacekeeping. I referred Members to those pages last week and I 
refer Members to those pages right now. They might want to look at 
those pages as this debate proceeds.
  Madam Chairwoman, peacekeeping is a crucially, vitally important 
function to this Nation. The cold war has ended and no longer do we 
have $425 billion defense bills. We have been able to reduce those 
dramatically. We are looking at challenges in many different countries, 
most of them nationalistic in nature.

                              {time}  2250

  We need to have a way, a flexibility, to be able to meet these 
challenges without sending troops. If we want to send troops, we need 
to be able to work through the United Nations, when it is appropriate 
for us to do so with our dollars, when we do not want to enter into a 
particular area with our own forces. The alternative is really for us 
to withdraw, for us to become isolationists.
  I say to my colleagues, if you read what we set out in the report, 
that becomes clear.
  Now, with regard to the gentleman's purpose, Mr. Chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has for some time been very 
concerned about the rate that the United States pay at the United 
Nations. It is 30.4 percent for peacekeeping. This year through next 
year we have an agreement, a 3-year agreement, that is right now being 
renegotiated, but right now our rate is 30.4 percent. It is a contract. 
It is a contract pursuant to treaty. We have agreed to pay that much.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I submitted on past occasions in talking about 
this subject that, if the gentleman's goal, and I believe it is, is to 
reduce the United States' share from 30.4 to 25 percent. I do not think 
there is a lot of dispute on this floor about doing that. He ought to 
declare victory and go home--well, I do not mean go home. But he ought 
to declare victory because the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], 
the very able gentleman along with his full committee chairman and his 
entire committee just a few short weeks ago in the authorizing bill, 
the bill that should deal with this issue, was successful in effecting 
a reduction in the authorizing bill. That was a statement to the United 
Nations that we were not going to pay, beginning in fiscal year 1996, 
any more than 25 percent of the total share on peacekeeping, a victory 
for the ranking minority member, I would submit.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I really think that that is an authorizing issue. 
The authorizing committee addressed it, and how did it address it? It 
was very sensitive to this, my colleagues. It was very sensitive to our 
contractual obligation. It was very sensitive to the fact that we said 
to the international community, ``We're going to pay 30.4 percent 
through 1995. But beginning in 1996 you're on notice, we are going to 
pay only 25 percent. Now get out there, Madam Ambassador, and negotiate 
it because the legislative branch is playing its role and it's giving 
you notice, not retrospectively. We're not going to abrogate our 
contract. We're giving you notice that beginning in 1996 it's 25 
percent.''
  Now that is what the gentleman is trying to get at. We have in this 
bill money for peacekeeping arrearages, $670 million in 1994 
supplemental funds. We have agreed to pay 30.4 percent. The gentleman's 
amendment abrogates that agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Mollohan was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, we have in the bill for 
fiscal year 1995, $288 million for arrearages. The gentleman's 
amendment would reduce that, abrogating our contractual commitment, and 
then we have $222 million for fiscal year 1995 plus $23 million for 
pre-fiscal year 1994 arrearages. So, Mr. Chairman, every dollar in this 
bill, the funding for arrearages and for peacekeeping in 1995, assumes 
a funding level of 30.4 percent, which is our contractual obligation. 
Next year, fiscal year 1996, it will be different. It will be 25 
percent, what the gentleman wants.
  The problem with the gentleman's amendment is that it violates our 
contract. He applies that 25 percent rate that we are going to do in 
1996, to 1995, and even back further, 1994. That is wrong. That is 
simply wrong. It is not keeping our agreement. We are a piker in the 
eyes of the international community if we do this, and that is the nut 
of this issue. While he is very attractively, and it is attractive in 
many ways, associating this with what I submit will not be compelling 
to this body because they will recognize their obligations, he is 
associated with some attractive crime fighting, but as he has pointed 
out earlier in this bill, we have to the extent possible been extremely 
generous with crime fighting. I would submit to the body, let's be 
content with that success, let's meet our contractual obligations to 
the United Nations, and let's rely on the authorizers from 1996 on to 
reduce that U.S. rate to 25 percent, where it ought to be.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I object. However, Mr. Chairman, I 
would entertain such a request at a later time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], to complete his thoughts on this before I 
start mine.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify, and I thank the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] for yielding, a couple of points which my 
distinguished chairman has made. I say to the gentleman, ``First, if 
you say that we would be in violation of some treaty agreement if we 
only give the U.N. 25 percent on peacekeeping, I submit to you that you 
are in violation today. The U.N. has been billing us for 31.7 percent 
for peacekeeping. The administration has only been paying them 30.4.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, the administration, I gather, is already in 
violation of whatever treaty there is. Of course there is no treaty. 
This is not written anywhere. This is a custom that has grown up at the 
U.N. over the years.
  Second, on the State Department Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1994-1995, the gentleman is correct. In 1994 the authorization act that 
we passed cut the rate back to 25 percent in 1996. But the bill only 
applies to fiscal 1994-1995; we have got pass another authorization 
bill before 1996 in ensure that cut is effective.
  Third, the U.N. adopts their 3-year budget this fall. Whatever the 
rate is this fall, we are locked into for 3 years; I do not care what 
the gentleman says. So this gentleman says to act now or never.
  And finally, and then I will yield back, the debate here should 
finding money for fighting crime and helping these States jail illegal 
aliens. That is what this amendment does. It makes a fair rate for our 
contribution to the U.N., which is what we pay to their general budget, 
25 percent, and we did it in 1973, just like we are doing this. In an 
appropriation bill we said the general contributions to the United 
Nations shall no longer be more than 25 percent, and we did it, and 
they agreed to it, and that was that. Listen tonight on peacekeeping.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] for his contribution.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]. I do so with some reluctance, 
reluctance because I acknowledged in the general debate the outstanding 
work that the chairman of the subcommittee has done to help other law 
enforcement programs, and he has been very, very attentive to the 
priorities of law enforcement in the areas of added funding for the 
FBI, for the DEA, for the OCDE, for more Border Patrol agents and, for 
the first time, funds for the incarceration of illegal aliens in States 
around the United States. So, I commend the gentleman, and I think he 
has made a tremendous effort.
  But I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Rogers] does improve on the bill. It cuts, as we have already 
heard, funding for U.N. peacekeeping forces by $200 million, and we 
have already heard that we pay almost a third of the total cost of U.N. 
peacekeeping around the world while this amendment would limit our 
contribution to 25 percent, and, as has been pointed out, that is what 
we have agreed to go to anyhow. It it not a contractual amount that we 
are talking about because we are not paying exactly the amount that we 
have been billed anyhow, and we have had past times when this Congress 
has not lived up to its commitments, and I have been concerned about 
that in paying our U.N. dues. But this is not a contractual, this is 
not a treaty, obligation.
  The United States has an obligation to say to the United Nations, 
``We are going to pay our fair share, but we're going to pay our fair 
share.'' Twenty-five percent is more than double what Japan pays. It is 
three times, it is more than three times, what Germany pays, what Great 
Britain pays, and many, many times what China pays today.
  The most important thing, however, is how we would pay these funds. 
We would take this $119 million savings, apply it to hiring 1,600 more 
police officers, and those are police officers, cops on the beat, I 
should add, and we take $88 million of it to reimburse States for the 
cost of incarcerating illegal aliens.

                              {time}  2300

  That is important to States like my own in Arizona, where we have a 
tremendous problem, a tremendous responsibility. Let us not forget, the 
illegal alien that is in any prison or jail in the United States is 
there because of a failure of the United States to enforce its 
immigration laws. So we have a responsibility as a Federal Government 
to pay some of those costs.
  That is exactly what this legislation does. It is about establishing 
priorities. It is about say saying yes, we have a responsibility of 
leadership in the world, to keep the world safe for peacekeeping in the 
world, but we certainly have a responsibility for peacekeeping the 
United States, for peacekeeping on our streets, and that is what we are 
saying the first priority of this government ought to be, is 
peacekeeping on the streets of America.
  That is what this amendment is all about, and that is why I urge your 
strong support for this amendment. It is a reasonable amendment. Vote 
aye for it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to see how many Members are on that side of the aisle.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would 
anticipate the time be divided 15 minutes to each side.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request is for 30 minutes, equally 
divided, starting from now. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], will control 
the time?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the request is agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the amendment offered by 
the ranking member of the committee is clever, but it is basically 
irresponsible. The facts are these: From 1945 to 1987, the United 
Nations conducted only 13 peacekeeping operations.
  From 1989 through 1992, under President Bush, they added 12 new ones. 
that means 84 percent of the money being requested is because of 
obligations which were first incurred under President Clinton's 
predecessors (this piece of the pie, Mozambique, Somalia, Cambodia, 
Yugoslavia, Iraq, El Salvador, and Angola).
  Previous administrations to the Bush administration began the 
commitments for another 5 percent of the requests before us tonight, in 
Lebanon and Angola. The Clinton administration began the obligations 
for only 12 percent of the money before us tonight.
  So what you have here today is a committee which is trying and an 
administration which is trying, largely, to meet obligations which were 
first begun under predecessors, and then to deal with a few problems of 
their own.
  Now, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] says that he does not 
want us to pay more than 25 percent of costs until the UN has an 
inspector general and he wants us to lock in to 25 percent permanently. 
He has won that argument. The authorization bill withheld 10 percent of 
1994 funds, 20 percent of 1995 funds, and 50 percent of the 
supplemental funds in this bill tonight, until the UN appoints an 
inspector general, and it prohibits paying more than 25 percent, 
period, beginnig with fiscal 1996. That is in permanent law. It is in 
permanent law. That is already on the books.
  It is one thing for us to say, as the authorization correctly says, 
that in the future we will pay no more than 25 percent. But great 
nations do not welch on commitments, and we made a commitment that we 
would pay 31 percent up until this year is over. And that is what this 
bill tries to do.
  Now, I want to make one additional point. It is not in the United 
States financial interest for us to renege on peacekeeping operations. 
Because when we do, we become the peacekeeper of last resort, and we 
get stuck with the bill.
  This chart demonstrates that when we wind up with these regional 
problems exploding into military action, we pay the most of any 
country, $1,100 per capita, 40 percent more than any other nation. 
Under peacekeeping assessments, however, we fall back into the pack, 
with France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada paying more as a 
percentage of their GDP than we do.
  I would also make the point that while, yes, we are near the top, 
except for France, in the per capita assessment for peacekeeping 
operations (we are near the top, second from the top), we have a 
different kind of obligation very often than do our allies. Because 
while we provide more dollars, they provide more troops.
  If you take a look at the peacekeepers under the United Nations, 
command today, the United States has 867, in comparison to 7,000 for 
France. There are different kinds of burden sharing. I think when you 
minimize the exposure of your own troops, it is a good deal for us.
  I also want to point out that if you take a look at how these 
commitments began, in Salvador we paid $3.5 billion in aid during a 
war. We are now paying $7 million in peacekeeping. That is a much 
better deal. In Cambodia we paid $915 million to Cambodia's neighbor 
Thailand when it was a shooting war. Now we are paying $35 million. 
That is a much better deal.
  In Lebanon, we are paying $77 million a year. But before we incurred 
those peacekeeping operations, we had 260 Americans who were killed and 
another 159 who were wounded. I think the $77 million is a whole lot 
better deal than losing those lives.
  So I would suggest to you that while this is an enticing amendment, I 
would suggest to you that we have no choice but to meet our obligation. 
Great nations do that. If we were Bangladesh or some other minor 
country, we might be able to escape our historic responsibility. We 
cannot do that here tonight. Live up to our obligations. Support what 
the committee has asked you to do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no politics involved here. I did not get into 
politics. I started working on this under President Bush. You will 
notice on the bottom of the lefthand chart, the number of missions 
began to grow several years ago. This is not a political matter.
  As a matter of fact, if you wanted to talk about facts, 49 percent of 
this total obligation that we are talking about here are for new or 
expanded missions approved on Clinton's watch. Forty-six percent are on 
Bush's watch. We are not talking politics. We are talking about our 
budget getting eaten up.
  No. 2, let us talk about where this money is going. We need this 
money in the States to help the States pay for the incarceration of 
illegal aliens. We need cops on the beat. This money will put 
peacekeeping in America, as well as fair peacekeeping in the U.N.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gentleman, I started back under 
Ronald Reagan as a delegate to the United Nations. But, Mr. Chairman, 
let me tell you something: For those of you who had some reservations 
about the last amendment, the Condit-Thurman amendment, which was a 
good amendment, but you had concerns because that was going to cut 
across the board and do similar to what our good friend the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] wants to do, and yes, there were some good 
programs in this bill. It provides some moneys for district attorneys. 
It provides some money for law enforcement. This amendment does not cut 
any of those programs. It only cuts one program, and that program is 
called peacekeeping for the United Nations.
  On the issue of United Nations peacekeeping, this is the right 
amendment for the right time. At a time when the administration is 
attempting to negotiate reductions in the assessment contribution the 
United States must make in support of U.N. peacekeeping, it is time for 
Congress, which has a lot more experience in the matter, to settle it 
once and for all. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that 
negotiations with the United Nations do not work. They do not work.

                              {time}  2310

  I know it. Dan Mica, a Congressman from your side of the aisle and 
myself were delegates to the United Nations in 1985, and we tried to 
negotiate, along with the Reagan administration, and we could not do 
it. So we came back here and we passed the Kassebaum-Solomon 
amendments. And we withheld funding for 5 consecutive years.
  It was not a question of any contractual obligation. It was what was 
right for the American taxpayers. We withheld those funds for 5 
consecutive years. And do my colleagues know what happened? They woke 
up at the UN. They no longer paid those $175,000 salaries to people who 
were used to making $15,000 a year. They cut back on all of the 
payrolls, and they reformed the place, not to our total satisfaction, 
but they listened because we hit them upside the head with a two-by-
four.
  I pointed out earlier, Members are looking at those charts down 
there, that the United States pays 32 percent of the entire UN 
peacekeeping budget. Other industrialized nations like Japan and 
Germany pay peanuts by comparison. And China, look at it over there on 
the end, who has a veto power, one of the five countries in the UN 
Security Council, pays one percent. And they run a $24 billion trade 
surplus with this country. They cannot afford more than one percent.
  We cut it down to 25 percent, my colleagues, we do it in this bill 
because this is where it counts. This is the dollars. Not in the 
authorizing bill. And we will send that message, and we will help 
President Clinton drive his negotiations home. We will win it for the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith], chairman, of the Subcommittee on 
Labor-Health and Human Service-Education, who has served as chairman of 
this subcommittee for so many years.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, most of this debate is 2 or 3 years 
late. Most of the objectives that proponents of this amendment are 
talking about have already been done.
  Let me point out that there are two assessments to the U.N. One the 
regular assessment, the other is peacekeeping.
  Starting in the last year or two of the Reagan administration, they 
proposed to cut back until we were a year behind on the regular 
assessments. The subcommittee agreed to go along with that. We paid 25 
percent less than we owed for each year for 4 years. And we did secure 
some reforms that we wanted in the U.N.
  But about the same time or about 4 years ago, the administration 
started just willy-nilly approving every peacekeeping operation that 
came before them. No criteria at all, just approving every peacekeeping 
proposal proposed at the U.N.
  Whenever a problem came up before the U.N. they said, well, we will 
take care of this. We will have a peacekeeping operation.
  The bills started piling up. So it was 3 years ago that this 
subcommittee said, look, we have to do something about increasing bills 
for peacekeeping. Our subcommittee started approving and we started 
paying less than our assessment.

  In this bill right here, and in the defense bill together, there is 
only enough to pay 20 percent, not 25 percent, not 30 percent, only 
enough to pay 20 percent of this year's peacekeeping assessment, 20 
percent. So there is already pressure there that we need.
  There is also $670 million in the bill to pay some of those 
arrearages that were built up over this number of years, $670 million. 
Even after paying that $670 million, we will still be at least $300 
million behind. That is enough to keep the pressure on the U.N. for a 
leaner operation. The $300 million in arrearages is plenty to keep the 
pressure on, and we want to keep the pressure on.
  When the new administration came in, and the Ambassador came to my 
office ``Ambassador Albright,'' I said to her, ``do something about 
peacekeeping.'' She agreed, and she has been doing it. I have been to 
the U.N. I have talked to all of them up there. They have been doing 
all they can for a year to get peacekeeping under control, to negotiate 
a new rate and not approve every new one. It is already being done. The 
Secretary General of the U.N. came to my office and I made clear to him 
that unlimited funds will not be forthcoming.
  In April of this year, the President went up to the U.N. and laid 
down criteria. We are not going to agree to any more peacekeeping 
operations unless they meet the criteria and we do have a veto. These 
things have been done. They are 2 years too late with most of this 
talk.
  What we are trying to do in this supplemental is to pick up some of 
the arrearages that we owe. We are not going to get out of them. They 
are a debt. There will still be $300 million owed on arrearages at 
least, and in this bill we pay only 20 percent, not 30 percent or 31 
percent or even 25 percent for 1995.
  We do not want to get completely out of the U.N.'s peacekeeping. I 
will tell my colleagues why. Just, for example, in a former Soviet 
province, Georgia, right now, they are having serious problems. If they 
do need to approve a peacekeeping operation, and if it is a legitimate 
thing to do, and we agree to it, that is better than not having a U.N. 
peacekeeping group there. Because if we do not, the Russians will put 
their soldiers in there by themselves. Do we want to start 
reestablishing the Soviet Union or a Russian Union? Do we want Russia 
to be in there with their soldiers by themselves in one of those former 
Soviet countries? I do not think so. We do not want to get clear out of 
the U.N. peacekeeping. This is in our interest. This is in our 
interest, not somebody else's interest, that we use this supplemental 
within the caps to pay the $670 million and that we pay the 20 percent 
of our assessment for 1995 that is in this bill. That is the 
responsible thing to do here tonight.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the very distinguished and hard-working 
ranking Republican on the full committee who is very knowledgeable on 
this subject because he has worked on it a number of years.
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points to 
my colleagues as we come to the close of the debate. I think it has 
been a good debate for all of us as we make a decision on this 
amendment.
  What is in front of the House tonight? In front of us on this 
amendment is the question of whether a billion two hundred million 
dollars will shuffle up to the U.N. or whether we will cut it by $200 
million. That is what is here tonight.
  I have just heard the former chairman of the subcommittee, my dear 
friend from Iowa, who knows this matter inside out, talk about what is 
waiting in fiscal year 1995. Members heard him mention the figure $300 
million.
  I will tell you what, friends--you vote this tonight and the next 
vote you will get is a billion dollars more in supplementals at the 
rate of 30.4 percent. And we as a body have said, we will pay no more 
than 25 percent beginning in fiscal year 1996. Mr. friends, your 
President and our President has signed it into law. That is the policy 
of this Nation.
  So when Members vote tonight, and they have the question of whether 
or not the priority is going to be continued along at 30.4 percent or 
restricted to 25 percent, remember what you are doing. You have already 
voted to cut it to 25 percent. Now we are saying, apply that to the 
$1.2 billion in the bill, $1.2 billion, my friends, and potentially $1 
billion coming down the pike at us in terms of a supplemental in fiscal 
year 1995.
  The correct vote tonight, in my view the best vote for our 
constituency, is to reallocate that little bit, $200 million, and to 
assert the principle that we will not pay more than 25 percent. That is 
what this is all about. We have already done that for fiscal year 1996. 
Let us do it for fiscal year 1995.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I only want to make two points. I have 
great regard for the Members who have spoken on behalf of this 
amendment, and I do not want to go behind their statements to look at 
motivations. All I know is, I never saw an amendment like this when 
Ronald Reagan was President or George Bush was President.
  Yes, we all tried to leverage certain reforms by holding back money.

                              {time}  2320

  We never sought to dis-fund one function and fund something else, to 
pick up some nice votes and to have a sexy-looking kind of an 
alternative, in order to gut our fundamental commitments to meet our 
most fundamental of all national security needs.
  Mr. Chairman, every single one of these peacekeeping functions that 
are being undertaken, that we are asked to pay the money we owe for, 
was voted on by the United States. Every single one of them except for 
Rwanda and Haiti was started by a previous administration. The 30.4 
percent share that our subcommittee has put into law to change next 
year has existed since President Nixon's time, Mr. Chairman.
  It is a very dangerous game to turn this into a partisan issue. There 
were times in the Reagan administration, Mr. Chairman, and in the Bush 
administration, where Members came to some of us in the Democratic side 
who had the majority and said, ``Do not analyze whether or not to use 
force in the Gulf based on partisan reasons. Do not vote for the fast 
track on NAFTA based on partisan reasons.''
  The notion of maintaining a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy is 
so, so important. This is a commitment. This is agreement. We have 
addressed the fundamental reforms for fiscal year 1996.
  When the gentleman from New York, Ben Gilman, and the gentleman from 
Iowa, Jim Leach, and the gentleman from Nebraska, Doug Bereuter, joined 
in a letter with me and others to say, ``It is important to emphasize 
what peacekeeping is not; it is not foreign aid, nor a contribution to 
the regular U.N. budget, but rather, payment for services already 
rendered. We strongly urge you to include this vitally needed funding 
in your mark, and stand ready to support you in any way we can to 
assure its enactment,'' that is what the ranking members of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from New York, Ben Gilman, 
the gentleman from Iowa, Jim Leach, and the gentleman from Nebraska, 
Doug Bereuter, three of the most respected people in foreign affairs, 
said to the gentleman from Iowa, Neal Smith, in 1992. The same thing 
holds true now. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  The first point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that all of us I 
think in this Chamber agree that we ought to cut our assessment down 
from the 31 percent to the 25 percent. I think the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] deserves a lot of credit for that. Over a period 
of years he has been working toward that, and to reform the United 
Nations. He has made a very constructive contribution. I commend the 
gentleman for it.
  Mr. Chairman, the question we confront tonight is when do we do that. 
We already decided that question once. We decided that we would do it 
in 1996. We have enacted that into law. What we are trying to do now 
with the amendment the gentleman is offering is to move the goal post.
  That is not fair. The United Nations, members of the United Nations, 
now anticipate that we are going to cut back out contribution to 25 
percent because we told them we are going to do it in 1996. Now we are 
going to come along and tell them we are going to do it in 1994, as 
well.
  The second point, of course, is one that has already been made. That 
is, we have to understand how important to our national security 
interests are the U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, first I thank the gentleman who last spoke for his kind 
words. However, in the fiscal 1994 Commerce, Justice and State, the 
Judiciary and Related Agencies conference report, we served notice last 
year that from henceforth we were only going to pay 25 percent of the 
peacekeeping costs. So we served notice a long time ago that this was 
coming, so there is no obligation, in my judgment, for the 1994 funds 
that have been mentioned here tonight.
  Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, where the money is going: Over $200 
million for cops on the beat, and to help these States pay for jailing 
illegal aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. I think he has done a good job, 
except for this one little small area, 31 percent to 25 percent, when 
the nearest contributor is down at 12.5 percent, and I have heard 
responsibility. We have a responsibility to repay the States what the 
Federal Government had said it owes them, but yet does not have the 
money to. This is a place to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have a responsibility. I heard fairness to 
support more cops on the street for a crime bill. Motivation was 
mentioned. Let me tell Members what my motivation is: first, 
responsibility; second, fairness; and the third is that I do not want 
the U.S. military under control of Boutros-Boutros, by golly.
  We look at what happened in Somalia, we look at what happened in 
Bosnia. It has not been effective. When we want to add peacekeepers, 
let us add them on the streets, and let us repay our States the 
responsibility we have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker].
  (Mr. BAKER of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, there are two questions in 
this amendment. The first is what will our percent of peacekeeping be 
when the budget is passed at the United Nations this fall? Will it be 
25 percent that we have approved for 1996, or will it be 31.7 percent? 
The answer will be decided tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, if Members want the percent to be 25 percent, they must 
approve this amendment. We continue to punish States with high numbers 
of illegal aliens. Several years ago we granted citizenship to 5 
million illegal aliens. We promised the States, ``You are in your 
mother's arms. We will take care of your health and welfare benefits, 
we will take care of your education costs, we will take care of your 
police service costs, trust us.'' That lasted less than 1 year. We 
stiffed the States.
  Mr. Chairman, we failed to enforce our immigration laws. We further 
stiffed the States when those people come here and use health and 
welfare benefits, education benefits, and are incarcerated, as 18,000 
illegal aliens are in California, eating up $375 million. That is money 
that should be used for police services in California.
  The gentleman from Los Angeles is absolutely right, Los Angeles needs 
more police service; but because we stiffed the States for the 5 
million illegal aliens we grandfathered into citizenship, because we 
stiff them every time we do not enforce our borders, because we have 
18,000 in prison, we are robbing from our local budgets in health and 
welfare, in education, and in police services.

  We passed trade laws that liberalize our trade with Mexico and other 
Latin American countries. Do we ask them to sign an agreement, when 
their citizens come here illegally and commit felonies, that we can 
return them? No. We cannot return them.
  Vote for this budget amendment. Let us stop punishing States with 
high numbers of illegal aliens by robbing their police, prison, and 
health and welfare budgets. I ask for an aye vote.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me tell Members why I think the Rogers amendment is very 
reasonable. In reality, Mr. Chairman, the United States of America pays 
well over 50 percent of world peacekeeping costs. The airlift in Bosnia 
has now gone on for a longer period of time than the Berlin airlift, 
all paid for by the United States. We have flown more missions over 
Iraq since the war than during the war.
  When we have an operation in which the United States not only gives 
its 30.4 percent to U.N. operations, but also unilaterally funds 
American airlift operations that help that same objective, we 
oftentimes go over 66 percent, or two-thirds of the total cost of the 
U.N. peacekeeping operation.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is extremely reasonable. We should vote 
for it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker remaining.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers remaining, and we 
would like to reserve our right to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on 
Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, on this particular issue, we have the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums], and many of the people who serve on our defense related 
committees strongly supporting the committee's action.
  After winning the cold war, we have now cut our defense budget 
dramatically. It is crucial that we support and keep our commitments 
under U.N. peacekeeping. We have got the room in this year's budget to 
put in about $670 million. If we do not do that, we are going to wind 
up the year with over a $1-billion obligation.
  Let us face it. We have made a contractual commitment to pay this 
money. We have had these operations out there that are very important 
to U.S. security interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to reject this amendment. No 
matter how cleverly it is drafted, it breaches our commitment to the 
United Nations, and I think it is bad for U.S. defense policy. That is 
why we have all of the major figures in defense in this House 
supporting the committee action.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, to my friend, the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Howard Berman, who is one of the really good legislators here among 
many good legislators, I would not say that his allegation that this is 
partisan politics is paranoia. That is too strong a word. I would just 
say hypersensitivity, because if it will please the gentleman, we will 
retroactively reproach the Reagan administration and the Bush 
administration for failing to scale down this figure to a fair and just 
figure, 25 percent, instead of the 30.4 percent that we pay. I hope 
that puts that to rest.
  Mr. Chairman, the United Nations has its uses. Of course it does. I 
am not one of those members who says, ``Get us out of the U.N.'' the 
United Nations has its uses. But we have to keep that in perspective. 
We cannot subordinate our foreign policy to the U.N. bureaucracy. It is 
just foolish.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been here 20 years and I have heard every year 
that we have given our word, our commitment, whether it is to the IMF 
or to the World Bank or to some negotiators on the law of the sea, 
somebody is always committing us to something, and then we have to 
retroactively bail them out and pay the check.
  We know if we read the Constitution, it says Congress appropriates 
the money and no money can be drawn on the Treasury unless first 
appropriated by Congress. Where does it say that State Department or 
the Treasury can obligate Congress? It cannot be done.
  We are not welshing on any word at all. However, if welshing is the 
subject for this evening's discussion, we welsh by 1.3 percent whenever 
we pay less than the United Nations bills us at 31.7 percent, and we 
pay 30.4 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, 25 percent is fair. It is fair to the American 
taxpayer. It may not be fair to the U.N. bureaucracy, but it is very 
fair to the people scrubbing floors tonight and having their taxes go 
to the United Nations for peacekeeping. Twenty-five percent of the 
peacekeeping charges is twice what Japan pays, and the last time I 
looked, we have a $59.4 billion trade deficit with Japan.
  Mr. Chairman, if we bring this into some sense of proportion and 
reality, we will pay beginning now, not in 2 years, now, we should be 
fair to our constituents now. We will be paying 25 percent of 
peacekeeping expenses. That saves us $200 million. What are we going to 
do with the $200 million? We are going to put $119 million of it into 
community police, something we have been promising our constituents 
since we started running for public office.

  We are going to take the rest and help pay for incarcerating those 
illegal aliens in jail, where they belong if they have broken the law.
  Mr. Chairman, what is more important? A satisfied bureaucracy at Lake 
Success or a satisfied constituency with decent police protection and 
people who ought to be locked up, locked up?
  Mr. Chairman, 25 percent is fair, it is defensible, it is just, and 
it ought to be what we agree to pay.
  Please, ask the State Department, ask the Treasury Department not to 
commit us to things without taking us into their confidence.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to close debate 
to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Penny.
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permissible to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment to reduce 
funding for U.N. peacekeeping programs. I often stand on this floor to 
propose budget cutting propositions. In this case, however, I strongly 
urge Members to support the request of the President for regular and 
supplemental appropriations for the U.N. peacekeeping efforts.
  I am joined in this request by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Murtha, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks, the gentleman from 
Mississippi, Mr. Montgomery, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, 
and other conservative Democrats who are concerned about America's 
national security interests as well as a responsible budget.
  I ask Members to consider the following facts:
  First, the supplemental appropriation for peacekeeping efforts in 
fiscal year 1994 is totally within the budget caps established in the 
fiscal year 1994 budget resolution.
  Second, the United States is currently contributing about 900 troops 
compared to about 7,500 for Pakistan and 6,000 from India. Clearly when 
it comes to troops, we are not shouldering an unfair burden.
  Finally, 82 percent of the current amount which the United States 
owes the United Nations is directly related to the 12 operations 
approved by the Bush administration. We could have as a member of the 
Security Council vetoed those decisions. We did not veto them, we 
supported them, and we must now honor our obligations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 228, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 288]

                               AYES--178

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Mazzoli
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Blackwell
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Conyers
     Derrick
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gibbons
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2355

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made 
in order under the rule.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of North Carolina: Sec. 
     801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
     to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines of the 
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering harassment 
     based on religion, when it is made known to the Federal 
     entity or official to which such funds are made available 
     that such guidelines do not differ in any respect from the 
     proposed guidelines published by the Commission on October 1, 
     1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, just last October, the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [the EEOC] proposed a new set 
of guidelines to title VII of the Civil Rights Act relating to 
harassment in the workplace.
  Many members have heard about these proposed regulations from your 
constituents.
  The EEOC received tens of thousands of comments on this issue during 
the comment period.
  The proposed guidelines cover not only religious harassment, but also 
harassment based on race, gender, national origin, age, or disability.
  I have joined Frank Wolf, who serves with me on the Appropriations 
Committee, and a fellow North Carolinian Martin Lancaster to express 
our concerns with the proposed EEOC guidelines.
  My amendment focuses solely on the proposed religious harassment 
guidelines and would not seek to delay the implementation of the 
guidelines for those other purposes.
  As currently written, the scope of the prohibited religious 
harassment guidelines are so broad and rest on such subjective factors, 
that constitutionally protected religious expression could be easily 
declared illicit harassment and punished.
  A number of groups opposed the proposed religious harassment 
guidelines. These include: the family research council; the American 
Jewish Congress; the American Civil Liberties Union; the Christian 
Coalition, and the Traditional Values Coalition.
  Ironically, if the proposed guidelines are implemented, they would 
not impact Congress.
  We could still continue to start off each session with a prayer. We 
could still have ``In God We Trust'' positioned above the Speaker's 
chair.
  We could still say ``One Nation, Under God'' when we recite the 
Pledge of Allegiance.
  We would not have to remove Pope Gregory IX, Moses, or Mohammed from 
the freeze around the gallery.
  But the American people's rights would be limited. Crosses could no 
longer be worn and Bibles left in desk drawers and lockers would not be 
allowed.
  Last week, I joined with several NASCAR drivers at a press 
conference.
  These drivers, their families, and their crews gather on Sundays for 
a service before their race. Should the EEOC religious harassment 
guidelines be implemented, they would no longer be able to hold Sunday 
services at the track, which is their workplace.
  These drivers are about to crawl into a hot, small metal space--about 
a 140 degrees--and travel between 100 and 200 miles per hour in front 
of one hundred thousand cheering fans--and many times that watching on 
their TV sets. Who are we to tell them that they can't have a religious 
service before their race?

                              {time}  2400

  How arrogant of Government to think it can micro-manage your life 
under the guise of protection.
  I also wonder how the proposed religious harassment guidelines will 
impact the military.
  For members of the Armed Forces, the base or the battlefield is the 
workplace. Would prayer and services be allowed?
  A constituent of mine wrote a letter to me expressing his concern 
with the guidelines.
  He is in the Marine Corps and is concerned that the Marine Corps will 
have to change its motto--Semper Fi--Loyalty to God to Country, and to 
the Corps.
  I could not assure him that his concerns were unfounded.
  One major company has already implemented guidelines because the 
company could see the potential problems if the guidelines should be 
administered.
  In a January 7, 1994 memo, the company stated:

       Technical operations personnel should not possess nor 
     display, in any manner, or premises any material which may be 
     construed, by anyone, to have . . . religious . . . 
     overtones, whether positive or negative . . .

  So what does my amendment do? It states that for the next fiscal 
year, the EEOC cannot implement, administer, or enforce the guidelines 
covering harassment based on religion that were published last October.
  This will give the various groups an opportunity to come together and 
develop a compromise solution.
  Religious harassment would continue to be protected under current 
title VII regulations, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which 
became law last year, and the U.S. Constitution.
  Many Members are aware that the Senate has already taken action on 
this issue.
  The Senate has called on the commission to draft a new policy that 
would make explicitly clear that symbols or expressions of religious 
belief [are] consistent with the first amendment and the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, are not to be restricted and do not 
constitute proof of harassment.
  Members of the House should go on the record in support of religious 
freedom in the workplace. My amendment gives the Members the chance to 
do so.
  Again, my amendment deals only with the proposed religious harassment 
guidelines.
  This is a simple amendment. It is supported by the American people--
mainstream America. I urge the Members to support the American people 
and join me in voting for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
and thank the gentlemen for the great work they did on this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] who is a cosponsor along with the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Lancaster] and myself.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will take 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
  All groups of all political persuasions, right and left and middle, 
support this and oppose the EEOC guidelines. Here is an opportunity to 
do something right. I ask for a unanimous vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. First I would like 
to thank our colleague Buck McKeon for bringing attention to the 
problem with the EEOC's proposed religious harassment guidelines. These 
concerns were originally dismissed by the EEOC but now most agree that 
the proposed guidelines are a severe threat to religious liberty. I 
appreciate my colleague's tenacity in pursuing this important issue.
  The amendment we offer to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
bill does one thing: it prevents the EEOC from imposing the proposed 
EEOC religious harassment guidelines of October 1, 1993. All groups on 
both the right and the left have serious problems with the language 
regarding religious harassment in these guidelines. This amendment will 
not restrain the EEOC from proceeding on refining and reevaluating 
these proposed guidelines.
  This amendment also will not restrict any current rights. As J. Brent 
Walker, General Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee has pointed out, 
``Even if religion were deleted from the guidelines, title VII itself 
would still prohibit religious harassment.'' This amendment does not 
delete religious harassment entirely or permanently from the 
guidelines, it only restrains the EEOC from imposing the October 1993 
proposed guidelines.
  In a letter to the EEOC from People for the American Way, they point 
out that the October 1993 proposed guidelines ``could be misinterpreted 
by some employers to impose unduly harsh and possibly illegal 
restrictions on free expression by employees and others in the 
workplace * * * Unless carefully designed and implemented, policies 
aimed at eradicating workplace harassment may produce tension with 
these goals.''
  Bob Peck of the ACLU testified recently in the Senate that ``the 
proposed guidelines issued October 1, fail to reflect the law with 
sufficient sensitivity to constitutional problems * * * . The ACLU 
opposes promulgation of the proposed guidelines as originally issued on 
October 1. Because it was drafted so broadly, it is susceptible of a 
reading that a religion-free workplace is required to avoid liability 
for religious harassment.'' The ACLU said it would ``welcome the clear 
congressional message'' that the proposed guidelines should be revised. 
We agree and that is why we offer the amendment today. The October 1, 
1993, guidelines regarding religious harassment should not be given any 
opportunity to go forward.

  The U.S. Catholic Conference has pointed out that religious employers 
could have particular problems under these proposed guidelines since 
they were not provided with specific attention as they have been in the 
past with title VII and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 
Certainly we do not want to eliminate the right of those who work in 
soup kitchens or homeless shelters under religious auspices to be 
required to expunge any visible signs of their faith from their 
ministries. The Southern Baptist Convention in its annual meeting last 
week overwhelmingly adopted a resolution which warned that the 
guidelines ``pose a grave risk to religious freedom in the workplace.''
  A letter from the American Jewish Congress also raises concerns about 
the guidelines as proposed on October 1,

       * * * there is a danger that the [proposed October 1993] 
     guidelines will be used by some to justify suppression of 
     legitimate religious speech in the workplace. There is, 
     indeed, already evidence that the fear of lawsuits alleging 
     religious harassment has already done so, as employers put 
     prophylactic measures into effect in order to ward off 
     potential religious harassment suits . . . if the Guidelines 
     require (or are understood by employers to require) 
     suppression of all speech concerning religion to avoid 
     charges of harassment, Title VII would be at war with itself. 
     . . . A wooden application of the Guidelines (as some 
     corporations apparently have already done) can lead to a 
     needless suppression of religious speech.

  I offer as Exhibit I in this ``needless suppression of religious 
speech'' a policy that was promulgated earlier this year at a major 
airline. It requires that ``rather than wasting critical time resolving 
conflicts or attempting to define precisely what might be offensive to 
anyone,'' all personnel are told not to ``possess nor display, in any 
manner on * * * premises any material which may be construed by anyone 
to have racial, religious, or sexual overtones, whether positive or 
negative.''
  Is this what we want to happen in the workplace today? Restricting 
any material that might be construed to have religious overtones--even 
overtones that may very well be positive? Do we want to ban the wearing 
of a cross? Do we want to ban having a Bible on your desk? These 
concerns were dismissed earlier this year in a letter circulated by the 
EEOC in a response to congressional concerns. It was not until EEOC 
received more comments than it ever has before in the public comment 
period that they appeared to recognize that the proposed guidelines 
were seriously flawed. What this amendment does is provide insurance 
that the EEOC will not implement these flawed guidelines.
  The proposed guidelines would also require employers to determine 
what constitute religious harassment from the point of view of the 
reasonable person given their race, color, religion, gender, national 
origin, age, or disability. In the majority of workplaces the employer 
does not independently know the religious beliefs of employees, much 
less the beliefs of the other individuals contemplated by the proposed 
rules, that is their relatives, friends, and associates. Are we going 
to have a reasonable Baptist standard, a reasonable Catholic standard, 
a reasonable Moslem standard in determining what constitutes religious 
harassment? Will every employer have to become a student of comparative 
religions?
  Religious harassment charges comprised 0.3 percent of total EEOC-
State and local agencies claims during 1990-1991 and 0.4 percent during 
1992-1993. This amendment will not restrict any of the provisions under 
title VII, it will only restrict the implementation of the ill-advised 
guidelines proposed by the EEOC on October 1, 1993. It makes sense and 
I urge your support for this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Taylor-Wolf 
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations 
bill.
  Since the inception of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employers have been 
prohibited under the law from discriminating against employees on the 
basis of religion. Under this law, the courts have consistently ruled 
in favor of the employee in religious discrimination cases. This has 
taken place without guidelines promulgated by the EEOC. Let me 
reiterate that point, employees have found adequate protection against 
religious discrimination without EEOC guidelines. In fact, this is the 
first time the EEOC has chosen to include religion in its guidelines, 
in spite of the fact that religious discrimination cases represent a 
mere one-half of 1 percent of its total caseload.
  The Taylor-Wolf amendment applies to the proposed guidelines which 
many, from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition, have found to come in 
serious conflict with the constitutional right to the freedom of 
expression of religion. Under the Constitution, we are guaranteed the 
freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. Yet, the EEOC's 
guidelines, as currently proposed could very well stymie religious 
expression in the workplace. If the people are protected under title 
VII, it is clearly unnecessary to put forth guidelines that could 
ultimately have the negative effect of stifling religious expression.
  The EEOC's efforts to regulate religious expression, however well 
intended, must be stopped. The Taylor-Wolf amendment is an important 
move in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Lancaster], and I would like to note 
that we fully intend to accept this amendment after Members who feel 
compelled to speak on it have done so.
  (Mr. LANCASTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LANCASTER. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues from North 
Carolina and Virginia in support of this amendment which we have 
offered that would guarantee that funds not be used for the enforcement 
of these guidelines promulgated by the EEOC.
  I do not in any way question the good intentions of the EEOC or 
question their statement that these guidelines are designed 
specifically to guarantee that religious harassment will not take place 
in the workplace. However, Mr. Chairman, leading conservative ministers 
and the ACLU have found one point on which they can agree, and that is 
that these guidelines are so broadly drawn that, in fact, they do in 
fact need to be, if not repealed outright, revised significantly. They 
believe, as do I, that these regulations, because of their 
overbroadness, would perhaps remove all symbols of faith as well as 
restrict the right of free speech and the right of the exercise of 
freedom of religion in any workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, we must not in the guise of protecting religious 
freedom restrict that freedom instead. People of faith, all faiths, 
must be able to freely exercise that faith and not feel that they are 
going to be jeopardized by the possibility of complaints raised against 
them with the EEOC.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Lancaster] for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Taylor/Wolf amendment which will put an end to the absurd but 
potentially dangerous plans of the EEOC's ``God Squad.'' The proposed 
guidelines on religious harassment are yet another example of the heavy 
hand of the Federal Government reaching into the everyday lives of 
people across the Nation.
  While EEOC officials claim their intention is to make sure that 
unwelcome religious expressions are prohibited, groups as diverse as 
the ACLU and the Christian Coalition agree that these guidelines will 
silence religious expression and encourage lawsuits.
  Ironically, 3 weeks ago a U.S. District Judge ruled that Playboy can 
be read on the job--but, the harassment guidelines being thrust upon 
the American public could make it illegal to invite a colleague to a 
prayer breakfast. This is simply unacceptable.
  No one here supports religious harassment or bigotry. Such harassment 
is already illegal under title VII and other Federal laws. But, the 
EEOC's proposed guidelines go much further than what the law or common 
sense requires.
  The EEOC's overzealous bureaucrats are out to undermine our 
constitutional right to freedom of religion. The EEOC's ``God Squad'' 
must be terminated, not workers who at the end of a hard week remark, 
``Thank God It's Friday.'' The Taylor/Wolf amendment will terminate the 
proposed guidelines on religious harassment. I strongly encourage all 
my colleagues to vote yes on this important amendment and stop the 
EEOC's ``prayer patrol.''
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the truly 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
Religious discrimination is still a very potent factor in the 
workplace. Many human rights organizations have recommended voting 
against this amendment. I shall do so.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Taylor/
Lancaster/Wolf amendment to prohibit funds in the bill from being used 
to implement the controversial Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
[EEOC] regulations concerning religious harassment in the workplace.
  These guidelines are controversial in the sense that many individuals 
and groups object to their content. They are not controversial in the 
sense that organizations as varied as the American Civil Liberties 
Union and the Christian Coalition have joined in expressing their view 
that they would serve to stifle constitutionally protected speech.
  I support the concept of protecting against real religious harassment 
in the workplace, but it is my understanding that existing law already 
provides for this. It may even be possible to write acceptable 
regulations to codify religious harassment law.
  Unfortunately, these regulations are far too broad and their effect 
would be to induce employers to create a religion-free workplace. Under 
the threat of large penalties for permitting harassment in the 
workplace, more and more businesses would take the safe route and 
prohibit their employees from keeping religious symbols on their desks, 
wearing a crucifix or Star of David or inviting a colleague to church.
  That would be an unfortunate departure from our Nation's historic 
recognition of the role of religion in private life.
  One should need look no further than the House itself to understand 
why we need to oppose these regulations. Many of us are members of the 
Congressional Prayer Breakfast. That might be endangered were these 
regulations imposed on the House. Each morning, we open our 
deliberations with a prayer, that too might be endangered.
  Implementing these regulations with the religious provisions in tact 
would do no good that I am aware of. The regulations have the potential 
of doing a great deal of harm. The Taylor/Lancaster/Wolf amendment is 
the prudent course. I ask you to join the Senate which voted 
unanimously in favor of delaying implementation of these regulations.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, let us stipulate that nobody should face 
on-the-job discrimination or harassment because of his or her religious 
beliefs. However, I am afraid this amendment does nothing to contribute 
to that objective. It has only symbolic significance. As a practical 
matter, it will make no difference. The amendment addresses 
implementation only of the draft EEOC guidelines with respect to 
religious harassment dated October 1, 1993, and by its terms applies 
only to that precise version, with no changes. The EEOC is already in 
the process of revising those guidelines. It is changing the guidelines 
in response to the many comments it received, which properly urged 
revisions to make sure the objective was eliminating religious 
harassment, not interfering with free expression of religion. Thus, the 
October 1, 1993, draft will not be issued as final guidelines. So, this 
amendment will have no effect. And we know that now, tonight.
  The amendment is also without practical effect because the underlying 
law--Title VII of the Civil Rights Act--remains in force, and it is 
that law which prohibits religious harassment and discrimination in the 
workplace. With or without guidelines, the EEOC will still be obliged 
to enforce the law.
  Nonetheless, some proponents of this amendment are intent on pursuing 
it, largely I fear because passions on this issue have been so inflamed 
by an almost willful effort to exaggerate and distort: frightening 
people into thinking their government was about to prohibit the 
exercise of their constitutional rights of expression of religion in 
the workplace, raising the specture, for instance, that you could not 
wear a cross or display a crucifix. That was never proposed or 
intended, and is the classic red herring.

  Yet, this matter has been pursued with such vehemence that accuracy 
and facts became an early casualty. For example, a Delta Airlines 
personnel directive has been cited as having been the result of the 
EEOC draft even though Delta denies it and has affirmed that it has no 
interest in restricting its employees' religious beliefs. Similarly, an 
unauthorized ``memo,'' attributed to the ACLU, was distributed by 
proponents of this amendment. Later, when the ACLU found out what 
happened, it issued a statement that the memorandum ``should be 
dismissed as inaccurate and unauthorized.''
  It is important, therefore, to reaffirm that true freedom of 
religion, and true government neutrality in matters of religion, 
demands that we continue to make sure American factories and offices 
are both free for appropriate individual religious expression and free 
from intimidation for or against any particular religious belief or 
creed. That is why so many religious and civil rights groups opposed 
the previous formulation of this amendment, which was offered and 
defeated in committee. It is important to our tradition of religious 
freedom to keep a provision in the law proscribing religious harassment 
in the workplace.
  Still, since this amendment will have no legal effect, there is also 
no point in aiding in any further confusion of the issue, confusion 
which would likely be aggravated in the process. This amendment, and 
most of the attendant remonstrances, are in the purest sense a 
rhetorical exercise. As we vote for it, all I ask is that we recognize 
what it is we're doing.

                              {time}  2410

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take that 2 minutes, but 
I would like to take, after the treatment you gave my earlier 
amendment, I appreciate that. That is nice.
  I would like to take exception to what Mr. Skaggs said, and that is I 
think it is extremely important that we express the feeling of this 
House of Representatives about the kind of overstepping that the EEOC 
is doing. I think we are doing that tonight. They need to know that we 
as the representatives of the people of America think they are being 
ridiculous, the Founding Fathers never intended for us to overstep the 
bounds of the religious freedom in this way, and they do not intend, we 
do not intend to see it happen in this country.
  I would encourage us to support this amendment and support it 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Taylor-Wolf amendment, I think it is 
important to separate fact from the fiction surrounding the proposed 
EEOC guidelines.
  The EEOC has proposed guidelines to clarify title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. The guidelines make it clear that religious 
harassment, along with other forms of workplace harassment, is 
unacceptable. But, allegations that the proposed guidelines would 
prevent the wearing of a cross or a yarmulke, an expression of 
religious belief, or the display of a Bible or the Koran are simply 
untrue. However, to clarify this point and aid employers, I believe 
that the proposed guidelines should be revised to include specific 
examples and explanations of what is and is not legal under title VII.
  While revising the guidelines, I believe it is important that 
religion not be deleted. It is troubling that those who profess to 
support religious liberty and expression would attempt to undermine the 
implementation of guidelines including religious harassment. These 
proposed guidelines exist to protect the religious believer. No one 
should be told ``You killed Christ, Wally, so you'll have to hang from 
the cross'' or physically assaulted in the workplace; and, no Catholic 
should ever be repeatedly referred to, among other things, as a ``dumb 
Catholic.'' Unfortunately, these are real situations--the kind of 
situations title VII, together with the proposed guidelines, will 
prevent.
  I urge you not to interfere with the EEOC as it develops its 
guidelines. I believe that the EEOC will be responsive to our concerns 
and it is not necessary to impose qualifications on their funding. 
However, I do hope that you will encourage the EEOC to clarify the 
proposed guidelines by signing the letter that Congressmen Ford, Owens, 
Fish and I have drafted to Acting EEOC Chairman Gallegos.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say religious harassment will continue to be 
protected under current title VII regulations, the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act, which became law last year, and the U.S. Constitution. 
We think these proposed regulations have gone too far. Some companies 
have already begun to act on them.
  I would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Roth.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I congratulate the 
authors of this amendment for the courage of their convictions. But due 
to the lateness of the hour and because this amendment has been 
accepted and it will pass, let me put my remarks into the Record and 
say that all of us took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the 
Constitution of the United States does say that this Congress shall 
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and I stress the 
words prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So we are going to carry 
through on our constitutional oath this evening and vote for this 
amendment.
  I appreciate the author's introducing this amendment and again 
congratulate you for having the courage of your convictions.
  Mr. Chairman, last November Congress passed the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act. This new law specifically prohibits the Government 
from substantially burdening the exercise of a person's religion. No 
law could be plainer.
  Yet less than a year later, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission is considering issuing regulations that would effectively 
stop religious expression of any form in the workplace.
  We must not stand by while one of our most basic freedoms is 
abridged. If the EEOC has its way, people in the workplace will not be 
able to: wear religious symbols like the cross or Star of David; have 
conversations about religion; have a party celebrating holidays such as 
Hanukkah or Christmas; or even keep religious books like the Bible or 
the Koran on a desk.
  As Members of Congress, we have all taken an oath to uphold the 
Constitution. May I remind my colleagues of the words of the 
Constitution regarding religion? They are that ``Congress shall make no 
law respecting an establishment of religion, or,'' and I stress these 
words, ``prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  Without the right to express individual religious beliefs, whether in 
conversation, adornment, or action, there is no ``free exercise'' of 
religion. This is true in our homes, our churches, our temples, and 
yes, even in the workplace.
  The proposed EEOC guidelines would have been typical in the former 
Soviet Union, but they have no place in a country founded upon 
religious freedom.
  So I say to my colleagues--do your duty, uphold your constitutional 
oath as a Congressman, and vote to protect the free exercise of 
religion for all Americans. Vote for the Taylor/Wolf amendment and 
against the proposed EEOC guidelines.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield three minutes to 
the freshman who has worked extremely hard and distinguished himself in 
his first year, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that the draft EEOC guideline of October 1, 
1993, insofar as it addresses on-the-job harassment of individuals on 
the basis of religion, should not take effect and should not be 
enforced. On this point nearly every organization concerned with 
religious liberty in America agrees.
  The EEOC is, as far as I understand it, working on a revised rule 
based on the many comments it has received during the comment period. 
That is the purpose of a comment period, and it seems to have worked in 
this case.
  I want to make clear, however, that while I agree that the draft rule 
in question is overbroad, I strongly believe that the final guideline 
on harassment must not omit protection against harassment on the basis 
of religion. On-the-job harassment against religious Americans is a 
real and pressing problem. It is also illegal under existing law. 
Neither the EEOC's guidelines nor the gentleman's amendment change this 
important legal protection of every citizen's religious liberty as 
codified in current law. Harassment of devote Americans is a real 
problem with real remedies.
  This House, by adopting this amendment, will not nullify those 
remedies, nor will we undermine the EEOC's authority to enforce the 
law. It would be dangerous for the Congress or the EEOC to suggest that 
the harassment of working people, because they are engaging in the 
practice of their first freedom, might be tolerated.
  The EEOC should have a chance, should have time, to develop a 
properly drafted, carefully limited guideline, to define and prohibit 
harassment based on religion. A carefully drafted guideline prohibiting 
harassment of religious individuals would not create, as some have 
feared, a religion-free workplace. If, however, Congress or the EEOC 
failed to state with adequate clarity the full extent of the existing 
legal protection against on-the-job harassment, then we would have 
taken a giant, if misguided step, toward a religion-free workplace and 
a religion-free society.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's comment. I hope in the future 
we will have regulations that will not impinge on religious rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we live today in a peculiarly strange era in which 
traditional American values are continually shelved, abandoned and 
trashed.
  The Surgeon General appears to be the leading spokesperson in this 
tasteless effort. When she advises young Americans regarding their 
sexual activities, she places more significance upon their daily supply 
of condoms, rather than emphasizing abstinence. She believes we should 
consider legalizing illegal drugs, snorting coke, shooting heroin, but 
in the same breath she suggests that tobacco, a legal product, be 
declared unlawful.
  Now she is offended when religious persons dare to become involved in 
the political process.
  And this brings us to the matter of religious harassment. Sanity, a 
rare ingredient here, is detected in the contents of the Taylor 
amendment. It simply says to the EEOC there are more pressing problems 
plaguing us than displaying bibles in the workplace or the wearing of a 
cross or the Star of David.
  I urge support of the Taylor amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute 
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I was in my office and I heard my good friend the 
gentleman from California, Don Edwards, speak. You know, one man's 
harassment is somebody else's free exercise. If I wanted to wear a 
crucifix and you wanted to wear a Star of David, we both should be 
permitted under the Constitution to wear our symbols and not assume the 
other person is harassing us.
  The Constitution protects free exercise. It does not say anything 
about harassment. That is a refinement that we have found within the 
parameters of the Constitution. But the free exercise of religion ought 
not be impaired by the EEOC or anybody. And if you want to wear a 
yarmulke, God bless you. And if I want to wear a rosary, God bless me. 
That is free exercise of religion.

                              {time}  0020

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment and would ask Members to 
vote in favor of it. When we saw the intolerance that was going on in 
Saudi Arabia when the simple wearing of a cross on the Army chaplain's 
uniform was barred, Americans were outraged. The seeds of that kind of 
intolerance are being sown by the proposed EEOC proposal.
  This amendment stops it in its tracks. Hopefully, they can come up 
with a regulation that will comport with tolerance and the kind of 
religious freedom that we have known and loved in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, it became known that U.S. military personnel deployed 
in Saudi Arabia as part of Operation Desert Storm were prohibited from 
wearing any religious symbols or from overt religious activities--
Americans were outraged.
  Even the U.S. Army chaplains in Saudi Arabia were barred from overt 
display or ``expression'' and had to conceal religious insignias on 
their uniform. The priest that married my wife and me 16 years ago--a 
chaplain in Desert Storm--told us stories of how this policy played out 
in everyday life. And it wasn't pretty.
  Mr. Speaker, America is not Saudi Arabia. Religious tolerance is a 
hallmark of American democracy. Yet the regulations suggested by the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may very well lead us in that 
direction. These proposed rules are sowing the seeds of religious 
intolerance, and the American people are not going to stand for it. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment to be 
offered by my distinguished colleagues Mr. Wolf and Mr. Taylor. This 
amendment will in essence nullify the regulations proposed by the EEOC 
last October.
  The EEOC claims these rules are necessary to prevent people from 
being persecuted because of religious beliefs, but the practical effect 
of these rules will be to simply eliminate religious expression.
  Nobody questions the need to root out intolerant behavior in the 
workplace, and nobody objects to these rules on that basis. But these 
regulations are so broadly worked that the door will be opened to 
frivolous lawsuits against employers, which will in turn cause many 
businesses to adopt policies prohibiting any religious expression in 
the workplace, rather than risk expensive litigation.
  In fact, there is evidence that this process has already begun, even 
before the EEOC regulations have been finalized. Earlier this year, a 
major U.S. corporation issued a sweeping personnel policy that stated 
in part:

       * * * personnel should not possess nor display, in any 
     manner, on [company] premises any material which may be 
     construed, by anyone, to have religious, overtones whether 
     positive or negative * * *.

  This is not a proposal, this is not a first draft, this is final, Mr. 
Speaker. A major corporation has told its employees that wearing a 
crucifix or a Star of David symbol is prohibited. Bibles in employee 
lockers or on a desk in an office are now considered contraband. How 
about the carols at the office Christmas Party? That may have to fall 
by the wayside in our brave new America which has been sanitized of any 
religious expression.
  Frankly, it is amazing that we have to revisit the issue of religious 
freedom in Congress. My colleagues could be forgiven for thinking that 
we settled this issue last year, with the amendment of the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act. This was supposed to protect the religious 
practices of citizens from undue government interference.
  The new EEOC regulations, if implemented, however will result in a 
real erosion of the freedoms that were supposed to be protected by the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If implemented, the EEOC regulations 
will generate a flood of expensive and needless court cases.
  But this is not inevitable. We can approve the Taylor-Wolf amendment 
and stop this misguided policy in its tracks. Most importantly, we can 
assure the American people that we do not take freedom of religion 
lightly, and that this Congress will not preside over any erosion of 
that precious right, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Taylor-
Wolf amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  (Mr. CANADY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I rise to speak in favor of the Taylor-Wolf amendment.
  The first article of amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides 
unequivocally that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free 
exercise of religion.
  But the tradition of religious freedom in this land existed long 
before the First Amendment was proposed and adopted.
  Indeed, the search for religious freedom was the primary reason many 
left their homes in Britain and traveled across the Atlantic to the 
American colonies.
  They sought a land where they would be free to worship and serve God 
according to the dictates of their own conscience--without the 
interference of the King or any other civil authority.
  The freedom they sought has been a reality throughout the history of 
this land. And it is the responsibility of the Members of this House to 
protect and preserve that freedom.
  This Congress has many important responsibilities under the 
Constitution. But we have no higher duty than the duty to defend 
religious freedom.
  The workplace harassment guidelines are totally at odds with the 
principle of religious freedom.
  These guidelines evidence a cavalier disregard for the requirements 
of the first amendment.
  They fail to take into account that the exercise of religion have a 
special protected status under the Constitution of the United States.
  These guideline, would place on intolerable burden on religion 
expression in the workplace. They would, indeed, encourage employers to 
establish policies coating a religion-free workplace.
  Every Member of this House took an oath to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.
  We should remember that oath when we vote on this amendment tonight.
  We should adopt the amendment and stop the EEOC's ill-conceived 
attempt to support the free exercise of religion in the American 
workplace.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  (Mr. BACHUS of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Taylor amendment and in strong opposition to the EEOC attempt to hinder 
religious freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Taylor-Wolf amendment. 
This measure will send a clear message to the EEOC that any attempt to 
hinder religious freedom--guaranteed in the first amendment to our 
Constitution--is unacceptable to the American people and will not be 
tolerated by this Congress.
  Anyone, employer or employee, appreciates the importance of a 
productive working atmosphere. However, the regulations proposed by the 
EEOC, undermine the ability of American businesses to independently 
create and foster a suitable working environment and unnecessarily 
restrict and hinder the freedom of expression of every American worker.
  I have received hundreds of phone calls and letters from Alabamians--
construction and factory workers, school teachers, secretaries and 
students, retirees and owners of small and large businesses. They want 
to know what their Congressman is going to do to stop the Government 
from further intruding into their lives and livelihoods. They 
accurately see the EEOC proposal as opening a ``Pandora's Box.'' Out of 
the box will come costly litigation based merely on the opinion of a 
disgruntled employee. Out of that box will also come distrust and ill 
will in the workplace, where none, and let me stress none now exists, 
except in the imagination of the EEOC.
  Our country was funded as a refuge and haven from religious 
persecution. The proposed action by the EEOC will in large part destroy 
that haven and wreck that refuge. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this amendment. Send a message to the EEOC and any other group that 
dares to breech the Constitution of the United States. The EEOC has 
gone too far. Let us hit the EEOC where it hurts--right in the 
pocketbook.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the 
indulgence of the House. It has been a very important amendment, we 
think.
  We urge Members to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Taylor/Wolf 
amendment.
  Hundreds of constituents have called and written to express their 
deep concern about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] 
proposed guidelines on harassment in the workplace based on religion.
  Basically the EEOC seeks to add religion to other categories of 
employee harassment, race, gender, age under Federal civil rights laws. 
These guidelines have serious constitutional implications and may 
violate the freedom of expression of religion guaranteed by the first 
amendment.
  Freedom of religion is one of our most sacred rights and should not 
be compromised by the overzealous actions of the EEOC. To permit these 
guidelines to be implemented with the category of religion included is 
an open invitation to litigate against employers who allow their 
employees to exercise their first amendment rights.
  I strongly support the Taylor/Wolf amendment. Join me in voting yes
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Wolf-Taylor 
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations bill of 
1994. The Wolf-Taylor amendment would prohibit funding for the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] to implement, administer, or 
enforce the proposed guidelines that would prohibit religious 
harassment in the workplace.
  This amendment sends a clear message to the EEOC, that the ambiguous 
language of the proposed EEOC guidelines regarding religious harassment 
in the workplace has the potential to generate misinterpretations and 
frivolous litigation. This is not only a burden on employers and the 
courts, but the guidelines would create a rigid and awkward working 
environment, which could consequently lead to organizational 
inefficiency.
  I feel the freedom of religion is a right that should not be denied 
to any American citizen. I have consistently supported efforts in 
Congress to preserve the right of freedom of religion. Earlier this 
year I supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA], which 
passed the House on May 11, 1993.
  RFRA ensures the protection of the full exercise of religion, as 
defined in the first amendment of the Constitution. RFRA is narrowly 
tailored by expressly prohibiting a law from ``substantially burdening 
a person's exercise of religion''. This strict scrutiny of the RFRA and 
the first amendment protects employees' rights to exercise religion. 
The broad definitions apparent in EEOC's proposed guidelines on 
religious harassment may negate the entire intent of the RFRA. 
Moreover, the guideline's vague language challenges the first amendment 
of the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, the freedom to exercise religion is a right that must 
not be denied to any American. The first amendment and passage of RFRA 
makes it clear that Americans' right to exercise religion shall not be 
infringed upon. The Wolf-Taylor amendment takes the necessary step to 
ensure that American's religious freedoms are not eviscerated. I urge 
my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Taylor 
amendment.
  We need to make it clear that EEOC regulations will not restrict 
religious freedom in the work place.
  This is a very important amendment and it should be passed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 366, 
nose 37, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 289]

                               AYES--366

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--37

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hinchey
     Johnston
     Kopetski
     Lewis (GA)
     Mink
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Olver
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Stark
     Stokes
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Skaggs
       

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Andrews (TX)
     Blackwell
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Cox
     Derrick
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gibbons
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten
     Williams

                              {time}  0040

  Mr. BROOKS and Mr. Pickle changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. TORRES changes his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  0040

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I expect that soon the floor manager 
will be moving that the committee rise and report this bill back to the 
House. This is not just a procedural motion, Mr. Chairman. If his 
effort succeeds, it will mean that for another year the money in this 
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill will go to illegal aliens, 
even as many American citizens have go without those same benefits.
  This policy is wrong, Mr. Chairman. This policy is wrong because our 
country should not be handing out any benefits to illegal aliens on the 
same basis as American citizens. This policy is wrong because it 
entices more and more people to come into our country illegally.
  And, Mr. Chairman, this policy is wrong because it is simply unfair 
to American citizens and legal residents, and U.S. citizens and legal 
residents who should always come first when taxpayer money is spent.
  Yet the leadership on the other side wants a vote for a motion that 
will continue this failed policy. Because the point of this motion is 
to deny me the right to offer an amendment that says, no more. My 
amendment, which adoption of this motion would prevent me from 
offering, says that we are going to stop the nonsensical policy of 
giving benefits to illegal aliens.
  Let me offer my colleagues examples of what will happen if the motion 
to rise passes. This bill funds the Small Business Administration and 
the Legal Services Corporation. Because there has never been enough 
money in those budgets, not everyone who is eligible for assistance 
from these agencies can be helped.
  In the case of the Small Business Administration, there is no 
restriction on assisting people who are in this country illegally. In 
the case of the Legal Services Corporation, although there some 
restrictions, many illegal aliens are still eligible for assistance 
under the so-called ``PRUCOL'' provisions.
  Because we don't have enough money to help everybody, every illegal 
alien who receives benefits under these programs is getting those 
benefits instead of an American citizen or legal resident.
  Let us stop this insane policy of handing out taxpayer paid benefits 
to anyone who can make it into this country illegally. Vote ``no'' on 
the motion to rise.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I join with Representatives 
Rohrabacher, Lightfoot, Livingston, and Rogers in opposition to the 
preferential motion to rise. Like many other Members, I testified to 
have a limitation amendment made in order prior to the preferential 
motion to rise.
  My amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill 
would have allowed no funds to be made available to carry out the 
return to Mexico of any Mexican national who is a prisoner convicted of 
a felony in the United States without a final order of deportation.
  Under a 1977 treaty between the United States and Mexico, Mexican 
nationals convicted of a felony in the United States may be returned to 
Mexico to complete their sentences if they request it. While this can 
alleviate some prison overcrowding, unfortunately most transfers are 
being done on a voluntary departure basis rather than on a formal order 
of deportation.
  There are immigration consequences to this shortcut. Persons who 
voluntarily depart can keep illegally re-entering the United States 
without threat of serious penalties. Formal deportation, however, 
carries the threat of 15 year imprisonment for those who break the law 
and re-enter.
  The re-entry penalty was enacted to be a strong deterrent to criminal 
aliens who have been deported from our country. There's no use in 
having a strong deterrent law on the books if we are going to 
circumvent it by allowing voluntary departure for criminal aliens who 
should be deported.
  Since I cannot offer my amendment before the preferential motion to 
rise, I am supporting the attempt to defeat the preferential motion to 
rise and urge other Members to do so as well.
  If this motion is defeated, then I intend to offer my limitation 
amendment to clarify what the nation's priorities should be in the 
handling of these transfers of criminal aliens.

       Amendment to H.R. 4603, as reported, offered by Mr. Smith 
     of Texas:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:


               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to permit or carry out the return to Mexico of any 
     Mexican national who is a prisoner convicted of a felony in 
     the United States when it is made known to the Federal entity 
     or official to which the funds are made available that the 
     prisoner is not the subject of a final order of deportation.

  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose the motion to rise 
which will prevent us from considering the Rohrabacher amendment to 
prohibit illegal aliens from continuing to receive benefits funded 
under this legislation.
  In particular, the legal assistance and small business loans provided 
through the programs in this appropriations bill are intended to help 
needy American citizens and legal residents--not people who have broken 
the law by sneaking into our country illegally.
  As someone who legally entered this country and became an American 
citizen, I cannot accept seeing American citizens and legal residents 
being denied the limited Federal money they desperately need just 
because Federal bureaucrats have given the money away to illegal 
aliens. This makes no sense. We must stop taking advantage of the 
generous nature of the American people.
  Congress will be failing in its responsibilities to the American 
people by continuing to provide incentives that will simply increase 
the raging tide of illegal aliens that is breaking the budgets of our 
State and local governments.
  The State of California now spends at least $2.5 billion a year to 
provide federally mandated services to illegal aliens, a skyrocketing 
cost that California taxpayers must pay that has driven my home State 
to the edge of economic chaos.
  In addition, according to the California Board of Corrections, local 
governments last year spent almost $120 million to pay for the cost of 
incarcerating illegal aliens in local jails.
  Thus, in order to meet our responsibility to the American people, we 
must defeat the motion to rise and support the Rohrabacher amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Bonior] 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 directed him to report the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that 
the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


              motion to recommit offered by mr. lightfoot

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lightfoot moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4603 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back 
     the same forthwith with the following amendment: On page 81, 
     line 8, strike ``$533,304,000'' and insert ``$507,871,000''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very 
straightforward. It strikes the $25 million in fiscal year 1995 funds 
which are budgeted as our contribution to United Nations peacekeeping 
operations in Haiti.
  As we all read in the Saturday New York Times, the Clinton 
administration is now preparing a 14,000-member peacekeeping force, 
half to be made up of U.S. troops, to occupy Haiti in the event the 
Haitian military leaders decide to leave.
  As many of you may recall, the Governors Island Accords envisioned a 
peacekeeping force of less than 600. Two weeks ago that force grew to 
4,000. Now that force has grown to 14,000 troops because the Clinton 
administration wants to be prepared to deal with any eventuality.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has learned nothing from its 
nation-building adventure in Somalia, which cost some of my 
constituents their lives. The four stated goals of this proposed 
operation do not include any American exit strategy. Already the 
Pentagon is in opposition to this plan because they realize the force 
would have no mandate and they are uneasy with the prospect of 
maintaining civil order.
  Canada has already declined to participate in this proposed force. 
And in a sad commentary on democracy in America, the Argentine 
President said Argentina's participation in a Haitian occupation force 
would depend upon the consent of the Argentine Parliament.
  Maybe the NED should sponsor a grant to the leadership of the 
majority party and send them to Argentina to learn about democracy.
  In Somalia, Congress did not exercise sufficient oversight and our 
troops paid the price. My friends, when the casualties from Bill 
Clinton's Haitian nation-building experiments start to mount, don't let 
it be said we did not have the opportunity to weight in on this matter.
  Let's remove funds from this bill for Haitian peacekeeping now, and, 
once the President shows us a plan and demonstrates the national 
interest, consider adding the money back in. It's the only prudent 
course.

                  Large Haiti Force is Weighed by U.S.


          size put at 12,000 to 14,000 with half from the u.s.

                          (By Elaine Sciolino)

       Washington--The Clinton Administration is preparing a plan 
     for Haiti, if and when its military leaders leave power, to 
     create an international peacekeeping force that would involve 
     several thousand American troops, police and civilian 
     contractors, senior Administration officials said today.
       The size of the United Nations-mandated force is expected 
     to be 12,000 to 14,000 troops, about half of them Americans, 
     although the officials said the final number could change.
       The size of such a force, which would be authorized by the 
     United Nations if the ousted President, the Rev. Jean-
     Bertrand Aristide, is returned to office, is much larger than 
     earlier anticipated. Less than two weeks ago, some senior 
     Administration officials suggested that a force of 3,000 to 
     4,000 would be sufficient.
       Following a number of intragency meetings in recent days, 
     the Administration concluded that a much larger force was 
     necessary.
       Administration officials said that the United States would 
     press the United Nations would press the United Nations to 
     create the larger force because Washington wants to insure 
     that it would be able to deal with any eventuality in Haiti, 
     particularly in light of the polarization of Haitian society 
     and the absence of civil institutions.
       It is unclear how many of the thousands of Americans 
     participating in the force would be armed troops. Buts in a 
     recent classified memo to Washington, Madeleine K. Albright, 
     the United States representative at the United Nations, said 
     that Washington wanted to reduce its troop contribution to 
     3,000 very quickly after the force goes to into Haiti, said 
     one Administration official familiar with the memo.
       Some senior Pentagon officials remain strongly opposed to 
     the formation of such a large force, because it would involve 
     a large number of American soldiers and because there is no 
     clear idea on what the force's mandate would be, 
     Administration officials said.
       Even though all relevant agencies of government have signed 
     off on a plan for the international force, the plan could be 
     modified or even shelved if opposition in some parts of the 
     Pentagon is strong enough.
       One indication of opposition to the plan came after State 
     Department officials said early in the day that the 
     Administration intended to present the new plan to Father 
     Aristide and to begin consultations with key lawmakers next 
     week.
       There already have been some consultations with the United 
     Nations and with foreign governments, and President Clinton 
     discussed the new force with Argentina's President Carlos 
     Menem at the White House today.
       But later in the day, a White House official said that 
     President Clinton has not yet signed off on the plan and that 
     there would be no consultations with Congress next week.


                               four Goals

       The plan, at least in its current form, has four goals for 
     the peacekeepers: the protection of democratic leaders and 
     institutions, the professionalization of the military and 
     retraining of the military and retraining of the police, the 
     protection of the international humanitarian and human rights 
     workers and the maintainence of essential civil order.
       Those goals were set out earlier this month at a meeting in 
     Brazil of foreign ministers of the Organization of American 
     States, and were endorsed by Father Aristide.
       But the fourth task--maintaining civil order--is fraught 
     with ambiguity and makes some officials uneasy.
       Some senior officials said that about a dozen countries 
     have expressed a willingness to take part in the force in 
     small numbers, particularly in sending police officers and 
     trainers, leaving the United States to provide the bulk of 
     the military and logistical support.
       Canada, for example, could probably be expected to 
     contribute Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and 
     engineers and helicopters to the force. It has also announced 
     that it will train about 500 Haitian exiles as police and 
     police trainers in Canada.


                      Request for Batallion Denied

       But the Canadians have already refused an American request 
     to contribute a combat batallion of about 800 soldiers, the 
     Administration officials said.
       At a press briefing at the White House today, Mr. Menem 
     said that it would be up to the Argentine Parliament to 
     decide whether his country would participate in an invasion 
     force to restore Father Aristide to power. He said that he, 
     as President, could decide on his own whether to send in 
     peacekeeping troops after democracy was restored, but did not 
     say whether he was prepared to do so.
       There are currently 870 Americans serving in peacekeeping 
     missions around the world. But the situation in Haiti and 
     Bosnia could change that in the coming months.
       If the Bosnian Government and the Serbs move closer to a 
     peace agreement, there is the possibility that the United 
     States would have to live up to its commitment to deploy 
     peacekeeping troops to Bosnia as part of a force of perhaps 
     50,000 troops to implement the settlement.
       Although senior Administration officials say it is 
     unlikely, the United States could conceivably find itself in 
     the position of suddenly having to contribute thousands of 
     troops to both Haiti and Bosnia.


                       aristide's support needed

       As for Haiti, Ms. Albright, who is actively lobbying allies 
     in Europe and in the hemisphere to offer troops to the force, 
     is said to believe that Father Aristide's wholehearted 
     support is necessary to win the endorsement of the United 
     Nations and troop contributions from other countries.
       A United Nations-brokered agreement, reached last July at 
     Governor's Island in New York between Father Aristide and the 
     military leadership, envisioned an international peacekeeping 
     force of 600 American troops and engineers about 170 others.
       But in helping to create that force, the United States 
     assumed it would be warmly welcomed as the means to 
     professionalize the military and retrain the police. That 
     force did not have the maintenance of public security in its 
     mandate.
       But the agreement fell apart last October, after the 
     destroyer Harlan County, carrying American and Canadian 
     trainers and peacekeepers, was confronted with a mob 
     demonstrating on the docks at Port au Prince and turned back.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I support his motion. I just say Secretary Strobe 
Talbott and the President look like they are trying to invade Haiti. 
Why Haiti? Because it is close?
  Cuba is closer. Why should we invade Haiti? Is there a lack of 
democracy? Cuba has a lack of democracy for even longer. There is 
greater suffering in Cuba. There is just as much immigration if not 
more from Cuba.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to invade Haiti, the President should do 
exactly what the last President did and come to Congress and get 
authorization from us first. There is no national interest in invading 
Haiti, but let the President say what the national interest is before 
doing it on our July 4 recess or in September or at Christmas or at any 
time. Let him not deploy troops to Haiti. Let him not risk the life of 
one single person in uniform, male or female, for the likes of Jean-
Bertrand Aristide. Let him not send our troops to Haiti without the 
authorization of every person in this House of Representatives.
  I urge the adoption of the gentleman's motion to recommit.
  Mr. Lightfoot. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would simply say that if 
Members want to vote in support of our men and women in uniform, an aye 
vote is the only vote we can have on this motion to recommit.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is patently unwise for the same 
reason I have heard very cogent arguments made on the other side with 
regard to telegraphing our intentions with any international situation, 
thereby taking options off the table. They ought not to know what we 
are or are not going to do with regard to military force or nonmilitary 
force or U.N. options or peacekeeping options or peacemaking options. 
We should not be taking that away from the President as he is dealing 
with this very delicate international crisis situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard that argument made, as I said, very 
cogently on the other side with regard to other situations. It is 
equally applicable to Grenada, Panama, El Salvador as that argument is 
with regard to Haiti. This is an unwise amendment. We should not 
telegraph our intentions or take options away from the President as he 
deals with this matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 214, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 290]

                               AYES--185

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Blackwell
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Chapman
     Derrick
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten
     Williams

                              {time}  0105

  Mrs. LLOYD changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonior). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 286, 
noes 112, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 291]

                               AYES--286

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--112

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fawell
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Huffington
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Lazio
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     McHugh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Portman
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas (WY)
     Walker
     Weldon
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Blackwell
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Derrick
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Murtha
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten
     Williams
     Yates

                              {time}  0113

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Yates for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________