[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7614-H7646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 198 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2076.

                              {time}  1752


                     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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2076) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gunderson 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on August 26, 1994, the President signed into law the 
fiscal year 1995 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill and said 
this: ``This Act marks a bold first step in our effort to combat 
violent crime in America.''
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we bring to the floor the second, even bolder, 
step in our effort to combat violent crime in America, a step that adds 
over $2 billion in Federal, State and local resources to the fight 
against crime.
  We have done that in the context of a bill that, first, reduces 
general discretionary spending by some $700 million in budget authority 
and more than $1.1 billion in outlays from the current year; second, 
reduces the Commerce Department to basic programs; third, supports the 
State Department; fourth, provides funding for over 20 other 
independent agencies.
  Overall, this bill provides $23.1 billion in regular discretionary 
budget authority, which is $722 million below the current year and $3.4 
billion below the President's request.
  For the crime trust fund, the bill provides almost $4 billion in 
budget authority, which is $1.7 billion above the current year, and $28 
million below the budget request.
  For law enforcement, one of the prime responsibilities of the Federal 
Government, this bill provides $14.5 billion, an increase of $2.2 
billion over the current fiscal year, an 18 percent increase, to 
support key programs, Federal, State, and local, to fight violent 
crime.
  Of that, $4 billion is from the violent crime reduction trust fund, 
an increase of $1.7 billion over the current year, to provide 
substantial new resources to our local communities, including: $2 
billion for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, passed by this House 
on February 14, 1995, to reach 39,000 law enforcement agencies around 
the country. This program provides funding for local officials to 
decide what they need to fight crime--cops, equipment, drug courts, 
prevention programs, whatever they believe important--not Washington 
telling them what they need, rather local officials tell us what they 
need. Mr. Chairman, this program has come to be known as the ``COP-
TION'' program, ``COPS'' with a local option.
  It also provides $525 million for the Byrne State and Local Law 
Enforcement Assistance Grants, very popular with our local officials; 
$500 million for the Truth-in-Sentencing Grants for State prison 
construction, to help States lock away violent criminals, a brand new 
program; and other programs providing more than $3 billion in resources 
to State and local communities to aid in their fight against crime.
  The bill also provides major new funding initiatives for immigration, 
anti-terrorism and Federal law enforcement.
  For enforcing our Nation's immigration laws, the bill provides $2.3 
billion, an increase of $730 million, including a $378 million increase 
for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to hire 3,000 more 
employees. It means 1,000 more Border Patrol agents and 400 more 
inspectors on the border, and doing that with no new border fee as the 
administration has proposed. It means over 1,450 more investigators and 
detention and deportation personnel to locate, apprehend and remove 
illegal aliens from the United States.
  Spending on Federal law enforcement and the Judiciary will increase 
by 4 percent, up $438 million, including 

[[Page H 7615]]
funds to sustain the 750 DEA and FBI agents
 we restored in fiscal year 1995; and $236 million to provide 1,100 
staff to activate 10 new and expanded prisons scheduled to open in 
1996.

  In addition, the bill provides $243 million for anti-terrorism 
resources requested by the President in a budget amendment submitted 
just last Monday, July 17, in response to the tragic Oklahoma City 
bombing.
  Overall, Mr. Chairman, this bill is the toughest anti-crime 
appropriations bill this House of Representatives has ever produced.
  But as tough as the bill is on crime, it is even tougher on low 
priority spending. Every other title of this bill is down, and down 
significantly: Commerce, down 17 percent; State, USIA, and Arms Control 
and Disarmament, down 9 percent; related agencies, down 23 percent. In 
the Department of Commerce, the bill provides $3.4 billion, down $715 
million below the current year and $1.3 billion below the President's 
request.
  For many, we have not cut enough. For many, we have cut too much.
  The National Institute of Standards and Technology is down $350 
million, from $750 to $400 million. No new funding is provided for the 
Advanced Technology Program, but bill language is included to assure 
that the $180 million in anticipated unobligated carryover funding is 
used for a 1-year closeout of prior year commitments. It maintains $81 
million for manufacturing centers and $263 million for our NIST's 
premiere internal research program.

                              {time}  1800

  NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is down 
$200 million to $1.8 billion. Its basic functions, though, are 
preserved.
  EDA has been cut 25 percent, as is the Minority Business Development 
Agency. U.S. Travel and Tourism gets $2 million through the October 
White House Conference and then it is abolished.
  It regroups the functions of the Commerce Department into three basic 
functions which we think will help as we consider what we do with the 
Commerce Department: first, trade and infrastructure; second, economic 
and statistical information; and third, science and technology.
  We hope this sets the stage for the decisions about the Department's 
future that will be made through the authorization process.
  For the State Department, and other international accounts, the bill 
is down $500 million from $5.7 billion to $5.2 billion, conforming 
international spending to the budget realities we face here. Funding is 
at or below all the authorization levels in the House-passed bills and 
includes some major reductions, particularly for the USIA.
  Peacekeeping contributions at the U.N. are funded at $425 million, 
down $108 million from last year and $20 million below the request. The 
bill includes language requiring notification by the President to the 
Congress of any new or expanded peacekeeping mission. The bill merges 
the Inspectors General of State and USIA ahead of schedule to begin 
consolidation of those agencies right away.
  On related agencies, we reduced the Legal Services Corporation by 
one-third to $278 million. We impose real restrictions to end abuses by 
the LSC. As an interim step, while the authorization process gears up, 
the bill imposes restrictions on what LSC-funded attorneys can do, 
including: requiring a competitive bidding process for those local 
grants; timekeeping requirements on the local field agencies; 
independent auditing, so the Congress knows how funding is spent; 
prohibitions on representing cases on redistricting, lobbying, class 
action suits against the government, prisoner litigation, 
representation of drug dealers; and subject LSC grantees to Federal 
waste, fraud and abuse standards.
  We have reduced the SBA by $333 million to $590 million, preserving 
its core functions of assisting small business, but at less cost to the 
taxpayer.
  Overall, Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $27.6 billion: $23.1 billion 
in discretionary budget authority, down $723 million; $4 billion in the 
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, $1.6 billion above last year.
  Mr. Chairman, we produced a bill, I think, that is as tough on crime 
as any we have ever produced and even tougher on low-priority spending 
programs. I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee who 
worked with us under very difficult circumstances to craft a bill that, 
I think, most of us can support.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to pay special tribute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]; the ranking member of our subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full 
committee, who has just done yeoman's work assisting us; the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Democrat; and all the members of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. Skaggs], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. Chairman, these are hard times. I have said before that in this 
bill this year we are eating bugs and drinking rainwater. We attempt to 
reduce overall spending, but preserve what is important.
  I have told our members that this is a year for hard choices, but the 
rewards are enormous. The American people have sent us here to do a 
job, and that is what we are trying to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill for what it 
is: a bold step in our effort to combat violent crime in America and a 
bill that is tough on crime, but even tougher on spending.

[[Page H 7616]]
TH25JY95.000



[[Page H 7617]]
TH25JY95.001



[[Page H 7618]]
TH25JY95.002



[[Page H 7619]]
TH25JY95.003



[[Page H 7620]]
TH25JY95.004



[[Page H 7621]]
TH25JY95.005



[[Page H 7622]]
TH25JY95.006



[[Page H 7623]]
TH25JY95.007



[[Page H 7624]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the Commerce, 
Justice, State, Judiciary, and related agencies fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bill. I want to again congratulate Chairman Hal Rogers 
on his first bill as subcommittee Chair.
  Mr. Rogers has done an absolutely excellent job this year as the new 
chairman of our subcommittee. His performance is all the more 
impressive in light of the personal tragedy he has recently faced. I 
cannot imagine how difficult it must have been to have performed his 
professional duties so well in the face of those circumstances yet Hal 
Rogers' courage shines through. The people of the Fifth Congressional 
District of Kentucky are fortunate to have Hal Rogers as their 
Representative. And we are fortunate to have him as our colleague and 
chairman of this subcommittee.
  He has handled this bill with great skill--beginning with very 
exhaustive hearings which explored the detail of the agency budgets 
under our jurisdiction. Hal did not waste time chasing simplistic 
solutions. Instead he pursued the course of a responsible legislator, 
following a sound, measured approach in writing this bill.
  He has been assisted by a very capable and dedicated staff, as have 
I. And I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the professionalism 
and talent of the staffs on both sides of the aisle for this 
subcommittee.
  While I do not agree with every funding level in this bill, there are 
many areas where the chairman and I see eye to eye:
  Crime fighting is a top priority for the Nation and this bill is as 
generous as possible in assisting the Department of Justice in this 
regard. We have been able to fund new FBI and DEA positions which we 
added in the bill last year, and for which Chairman Rogers fought so 
hard.
  In addition, the bill includes an extremely generous immigration 
initiative. The approach the chairman has taken attacks the illegal 
alien program on all fronts--700 new border patrol agents, 400 new 
inspectors, 945 new detention personnel, and 750 new investigators.
  Further, funds provided in this bill will allow INS to continue its 
automation initiatives so that INS agents can perform their duties in a 
modern world.
  And, of course, we are all happy that the Byrne Law Enforcement Grant 
Program is funded. I will be offering an amendment to increase funds 
for the Byrne Grant Program because it is such an effective tool for 
local law enforcement.
  This bill also funds the State Department at levels consistent with 
proposals to reinvent government.
  And, finally, I am pleased the subcommittee funded U.S. contributions 
to the U.N. and international organizations.
  Having said this, there are areas of this bill where I have grave 
concerns. In this regard, the budget realities facing the chairman 
should not go unmentioned. The shortage in this subcommittee's 602-B 
allocation is directly related to the recently
 passed budget resolution.

  The budget resolution is the blueprint for a budget cutting frenzy 
which is dangerous for our Nation. During Budget Committee 
considerations I was very distressed to see Members carelessly propose 
drastic cuts to programs that meant a lot to people, often the less 
fortunate. They did so without a full analysis of the effect of these 
cuts on the American people.
  And these budget resolution guidelines have dictated chairman Rogers' 
allocation in the appropriations process. So I stand here very 
uncomfortable about the premise under which we are operating: one that 
forces our Nation's crime-fighting initiatives, our competitiveness 
agenda, and our diplomatic functions to compete in less than a zero 
sums game.
  And who has been the hardest hit by this exercise? The Commerce 
Department. Chairman Rogers has acted responsibly by not dismantling 
the Department in the appropriations process as some illconceived 
proposals would recommend.
  However, I do have concerns with cuts in civilian technology programs 
at NIST and the Fisheries and Ocean Programs at NOAA. I will be 
offering two amendments to address these important policy issues.
  Another area of special concern is in the Crime Trust Fund. This bill 
does not fund the highly effective COPS Program and prevention 
programs. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. This bill does not fund the 
COPS Program. We have over 20,000 new police officers, in virtually 
every congressional district in this country, to whom the Federal 
Government has committed multiyear funding. The problem is that there 
is not one red cent in this bill for the COPS Program. Instead, it 
funds a block grant program which is not even authorized. Nor will it 
likely be authorized, since the President, Congress, and the American 
people have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the COPS 
Program which is already out there getting police onto the streets. In 
my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is irresponsible to stop this program 
midstream--in effect throwing our investment away. I will be offering 
an amendment to fund the COPS Program in place of the block grant 
program.
  Other areas which concern me are: The restriction of funds to exclude 
postconviction defender organization; The slashed funding and 
restrictions imposed on the Legal Services Corporation; the conditions 
placed on the President regarding UN peacekeeping; the cut in funding 
for international broadcasting; and the large State criminal alien 
assistance increases, which is a concern I probably hold in the 
minority in this body.
  But, as I have stated, the chairman has done well in such an austere 
context. I offer my personal congratulations to him. And I look forward 
to working with him to strengthen this bill through the remainder of 
the appropriations process.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very kind and 
generous remarks.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both the chairman and 
the ranking member for the work that both they and their staffs have 
done. Let me highlight a couple of points that I would like to make 
about the bill.
  First, from my area of representing a border area, I am very pleased 
with the funding that we have in here for immigration enforcement 
officers and the outright rejection of a border crossing fee. That is 
an issue that has raised its ugly head in the other body and is 
continuing to do so. I hope with our action here, and in the Senate 
appropriations, that we will lay that issue to rest.
  I am very pleased with the emphasis that we place in this legislation 
on the flexibility for local and State law enforcement. I think it is 
extraordinarily important that we given that kind of flexibility. I 
would have preferred to see great cuts in the Commerce Department. 
There are some areas that I think we should have cut more deeply, but 
that issue is going to be one that we are going to be dealing with as 
we get into the authorization issue of what we do with the Commerce 
Department.
  Finally, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, this bill is good evidence of 
a shrinking pot of discretionary funding that is available. I 
congratulate the chairman, the staff, and the other Members for the job 
that they have done in putting together a reasonable bill under the 
circumstances.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] on the job they have done in bringing this very 
important bill to the floor, but I also rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia on the COPS 
Program, which will be the first amendment discussed this evening.
  The goal was simple when we passed the crime bill, and it is very 
simple today: Put more cops on the beat, crime rates will fall, and our 
families will be safer. The Mollohan amendment will help us meet that 
goal by providing continued funding for programs like COPS FAST, 
programs that help police departments hire new officers and develop 
innovative community policing programs.

[[Page H 7625]]

  Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues intend to abolish these 
programs and replace them with open-ended block grants. I think they 
miss the point. The Republican block grant proposal does not guarantee 
more cops on our streets. In fact, under the Republican proposal, grant 
money could be used for anything from street lighting to road 
construction.
  The COPS Program guarantees more cops on the street, and I challenge 
the Republicans to make the same guarantee. They cannot. COPS grants 
flow straight from the Justice Department to the local law enforcement 
agencies. We cut down on administrative overhead by streamlining the 
application process and taking other steps to reduce red tape.
                              {time}  1815

  The COPS Program empowers local communities to take responsibility 
for community safety by putting more police officers where they are 
needed the most. It does not mandate a Federal solution to problems 
that are often unique to neighborhoods and communities. The COPS 
Program succeeds because it empowers community police departments to 
find innovative, new strategies to combat crime and make the best use 
of available resources.
  Neighborhood officers work with volunteers to keep our streets safe 
and our communities informed. Crime fighting experts and officers on 
the beat agree that community policing works. The COPS Program is a 
nonbureaucratic solution to a terrible problem, and the result is a 
marked decrease in crime, in theft, in burglary, and other more serious 
crime.
  In Sacramento, citizens are involved in this effort, working with 
local law enforcement and injecting in their efforts a new spirit of 
cooperation and teamwork.
  I want to talk about how this program has worked in communities in my 
district because it really provides an example of how successful this 
program can be and how, with some support, we can begin to address 
fundamental problems with local solutions, not Washington answers. In 
Sacramento County, CA, several groups of volunteers and local law 
enforcement officers have joined hands to establish sheriff's community 
service centers.
  In North Highlands, part of my district in the unincorporated part of 
Sacramento County, we have put together, without fanfare, with tireless 
devotion, I might add, a group of volunteers and deputies who have made 
a tremendous contribution to community safety. This photo to my right 
shows our sheriff, Glenn Craig, and others at the dedication of this 
community center. With an all-volunteer staff and a roster of deputies 
paid through a COPS grant and county matching funds, the North 
Highlands center is both a thriving community center, and an 
indispensable component of the county law enforcement team.
  Volunteers work side by side with deputies, helping out with many of 
the day-to-day responsibilities that keep the wheels of justice 
turning, taking crime reports, providing a safe haven for neighborhood 
kids, helping others navigate through the sometimes confusing world of 
law enforcement and county services.
  Since January of this year, these volunteers and others have logged 
4,000 crime reports. Many of these volunteers spent 40 hours a week at 
the center. As one volunteer put it, a real sense of pride in their 
contribution to the neighborhood motivates their involvement.
  The spirit of community involvement extends well beyond the walls of 
this North Highlands center. The office space is donated, so is the 
furniture, right down to the carpet.
  Deputies like Willy Nix have found new ways to approach old problems. 
Deputy Nix, a patrol cop before coming to work with the North Highlands 
staff, talked to me just the other day about the advantages of 
community policing. An officer on patrol usually has just enough time 
to drive to a location, take a report, and drive away. Now, he said, 
``I can work with local agencies, the neighbors, the landlords, and all 
the people in the community to attack crime from every angle.''
  In some areas, drug dealers have literally trashed the community. 
Deputy Nix works with community members and service center volunteers 
to address this problem from the branches down to the roots, towing 
abandoned cars, cleaning up yards strewn with garbage, and returning 
the streets to law-abiding citizens. Yes, Deputy Nix is busy. He sets 
time aside to work with local schoolchildren. Because center volunteers 
have worked hard to establish after-school programs, many of these kids 
have more than just a uniform to turn to, they have an entire network 
of support, from reading and arts programs to safe recreational 
facilities in the evening.
  What may seem like a commonsense solution is only possible if other 
communities can afford to hire officers like Willy Nix. In cities and 
towns around the country, volunteers are committed to breaking down 
barriers and developing a community commitment to law enforcement which 
will rise to the challenge, but only if given the opportunity.
  The Mollohan amendment gives them that opportunity, and I urge its 
adoption by the Members here this afternoon.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member. In the face of a very difficult challenge and very 
high-priority programs, they have achieved a $1.1 billion reduction 
over the 1995 number and at the same time maintained the high-priority 
items.
  Certainly, this bill fights crime, and that is the No. 1 priority 
with the American people, and all the programs that will impact on 
crime prevention are fully funded and in some cases extra money has 
been put in.
  Second, in Legal Services, which it is controversial, it has been 
reined in. The criteria have been established that ensure that money 
expended for Legal Services will be directed to helping people with 
their personal problems. I call it ``Legal Medicare'' because it does 
allow the poor to have access to legal representation and avoids the 
political activities that have happened in the past.
  Third, it puts a strong management focus on the Commerce Department. 
It has features in this bill that will ensure that Commerce does just 
what that name implies, and that is further the commerce of the United 
States. We are the world's largest exporter. Commerce is very important 
to the people of this Nation, both from the standpoint of jobs as well 
as access to the goods and services that they find highly desirable.
  The last feature that I would like to emphasize is that it does fund 
the International Trade Administration in the Commerce Department. This 
ITA is very important because it enforces the trade laws. It ensures 
the playing field will be level. We have just observed this in the 
issue between ourselves and Japan, and particularly enforces the two 
features in the trade laws that are very important for the protection 
of American jobs, anti-dumping and countervailing. It stops injury to 
U.S. industries, saves U.S. jobs, I think, a very important feature of 
the bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], for a fine job 
on a tough bill.
  I am here tonight during this general debate because I really take 
exception to the local law enforcement block grant that the majority 
party has put in here. They have gutted the Clinton COPS Program. They 
have put it all into this local law enforcement block grant and funded 
it with $3.2 billion. The problem is they called it local law 
enforcement block grant, but in their bill not one police officer is 
hired. We have no guarantee of any police officers working the street.
  Having been a city police officer, having been a State trooper, the 
best 

[[Page H 7626]]
crime fighting we have is a police officer on the street working with 
the communities, working with the citizens they should serve.
  We have 20,400 police officers under the Clinton COPS Program. We 
have none under the $3.2 billion law enforcement block grant proposed.
  What does your application look like? Your administrative costs, you 
admit in your own report, are going to be about 2.5 percent. The other 
body says it is going to be 15 percent. You are going to have to fill 
out paperwork after paperwork in order to get a grant for, hopefully, a 
police officer or a police car.
  How much money is being awarded underneath your program will depend 
upon the crime index. The Department of Justice has done their 
analysis. They said how much a city will get will depend upon their 
crime index. The more crime you have underneath your proposal, the more 
money the jurisdiction will get. The next year, if the crime comes 
down, as crime is coming down now, they will lose money. Having been a 
police officer, you have got to fight crime more than 12 months.
  Take the city of New York, which has a 31 percent decrease in murders 
for 1995. Will they get 31 percent less money next year? You cannot 
have an effective program if every 12 months you are going to renew the
 amount of money you are going to give them. If they are effective, we 
should reward them for effective law enforcement and reducing crime, 
not punish them by taking away money.

  When you take a look at it, we have had the Clinton COPS Program for 
about 8 months. The Police Executive Research Forum actually did an 
analysis, contacted their members, 220 of them around the country, and 
said, ``What do you like, do you like this proposed local block grant 
that the Republican Party is putting forth, or would you keep the 
Clinton program, the Clinton COPS program?'' Of those 220 police 
executives who responded, only 5 percent, 5 percent support a block 
grant, discretionary block grant that you propose. The rest of them 
support the Clinton COPS programs.
  I am just not up here talking about this because of my 12 years in 
law enforcement, but every major police organization in the country 
opposes what you are trying to do in this bill. The FOP, Fraternal 
Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, Police 
Executive Research Forum, National Troopers Coalition, National 
Sheriffs' Association, National Black Police Officers' Association, 
major city chiefs, U.S. Conference of Mayors, they are opposed to what 
you are doing with this block grant because they know what happened in 
the 1960's and 1970's when so much money was wasted on airplanes, on 
tanks, on real estate, on consultants on studies, and nothing ever went 
to fighting crime.
  So while the bill overall is a good bill, this local block grant that 
does not guarantee one police officer, that only 5 percent of the 
police executives in this country support, cannot win over my support 
and, therefore, we have asked, and the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] has brought forth an amendment. It is going to be the 
first one up tonight to take $2 billion and put it back to guaranteed 
police officers across this Nation with the Clinton COPS program.
  Support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], the very distinguished member of the 
subcommittee, in fact, the vice chairman of the subcommittee who has 
helped us a great deal this year, especially.
  (Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank, 
first of all, our chairman and the hard-working staff on both sides of 
the aisle and our minority ranking member for the work in putting this 
bill together.
  Our chairman has spent a lot of hours, and this is his first time at 
this, and very trying time, and I especially appreciate the good job 
that he has done.
  Now, there is no bill that is perfect. I, in fact, would like myself 
to have seen the Legal Services zeroed out, but it was cut, and we 
moved it in the right direction.
  In the area of the police program, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
remarks and respect him a great deal for what he was saying, that many 
of the police organizations may question block grants, this is going to 
give local law enforcement officers a chance to put the money where 
they will. I talked with a Democrat sheriff now, but he was former 
president of the National Sheriff's Organization, and he pointed out 
that the 100,000 COPS Program was a myth.
  First of all, you have got a few dollars to start, maybe 10,000, 
15,000 police all across the country. Then after each year, money was 
taken away until after, I think, the third year it was down to zero. He 
said, ``If we had the money to put more people on the force now, we 
would have already done it. A program that withdraws the dollars 
quickly from us is no help at all,'' and he would not, as a past 
president of the National Sheriff's Organization, even participate in 
the so-called 100,000 police program.
  We will take monitoring from Congress. We have to work with our local 
governments, but I think the block grant can be of enormous benefit to 
individual police departments.
  I cannot go back to the 1960's and debate what the gentleman said 
about areas where there might have been waste. But we can have, with 
local governments and local forces trying to utilize these funds rather 
than Washington bureaucrats dictating, we can, I think, get a law 
enforcement program that will be far more secure, demanding the kind of 
accountability and giving people what they want, which is a lower crime 
rate.
  I hope that we will support the block grant program and support this 
bill, and again I thank our chairman and our staff for the work.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Baesler].
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I support the Appropriations Committee's 
recommendation for the Legal Services Corporation. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the vital work of Legal Services Programs 
across the country.
  My distinguished colleague, Hal Rogers of Kentucky, worked long and 
hard as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee to achieve the 
recommendation before us. It was a difficult decision that strikes a 
balance between the demand by our constituents for fiscal austerity and 
the basic needs of the poor for legal help with their everyday civil 
legal problems.
  Legal Services Programs have a proud record of accomplishment in 
Kentucky and in my district. Central Kentucky Legal Services has been 
working since 1977 with low-income residents of central Kentucky, 
serving an estimated poverty population of 58,000. This program is 
known for its creative partnerships with other community agencies, such 
as the law care program it sponsors jointly with the Fayette County Bar 
Association. Law care, which provides pro bono help to county 
residents, is a model program for donated legal services in Kentucky 
and in areas of similar size nationally.
  Another collaboration, with the Bluegrass Area Development District 
Area Agency on Aging, resulted in the long-term care ombudsman program. 
This program has won national recognition for its success in providing 
services to elderly citizens in nursing homes.
  In addition, Central Kentucky Legal Services has been instrumental in 
helping low-income parents get improved child support collection 
services. Over the years it has helped literally thousands of abused 
women get protection and support for themselves and their children.
  Our vote today unfortunately will decrease rather than increase Legal 
Services' resources. In typifies the harsh budget climate for most 
federally funded programs. But it will enable the Legal Services 
Corporation to maintain basic services to the poor and to keep alive 
the basic American promise of equal justice for all.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman].

[[Page H 7627]]

  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to take this opportunity to commend 
the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
State, and Judiciary, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for his 
excellent work on this bill.
  As Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, which 
authorizes and has oversight responsibility for many of the items in 
this bill, I can attest to the fact that our committee has worked 
closely with the gentleman from Kentucky since the beginning of the 
year.
  The bill produced by the gentleman's appropriations subcommittee 
conforms in most important respects with the House decisions on funding 
made as part of its consideration and passage of the American Overseas 
Interests Act, H.R. 1561.
  Just as H.R. 1561 was within budget, this bill is also within budget.
  Some Members may prefer to cut these programs further.
  But when the full House, based on the recommendation of the 
authorizing committee, has made an authorization decision, and when 
that decision has been ratified by the Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations Subcommittee, based on its own expertise, then our 
colleagues should refrain from overturning those decisions here on the 
floor.
  Accordingly, with the exception of an important item related to 
restricting spending on our Nation's diplomatic establishment in 
Vietnam, which I will address at some length later, I intend to support 
Chairman Rogers on this appropriations bill.
  I strongly urge our colleagues to join me in that support.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mollohan 
amendment. It is in my view a probusiness and proenvironment amendment, 
and I want to speak on behalf of the oldest industry in this country, 
our commercial fishing industry. That industry contributes more than 
$111 billion annually and provides jobs for 1.5 million Americans.
  There are hundreds of communities across America that depend on a 
healthy fishery for their economic well-being. In recent years many of 
these communities have spent millions of dollars to help bring back 
their long-depleted fish populations. The Mollohan amendment corrects 
this bill's attack on that commitment between Government and 
communities to restore the local economy.
  The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations wrote to me 
recently along with the Northwest sport fishing industry. They both 
support the Mollohan amendment. Together they represent over 5,000 
businesses and 200,000 jobs on the Pacific coast. According to them 
these very important groups say fishery management cannot happen unless 
fishery research and conservation are fully funded, and this bill, they 
say, cuts at the heart of many important ongoing efforts. It makes no 
economic sense, and they go on to say on behalf of the men and women 
who provide jobs for fishing communities, food for America's tables, 
and high-quality products for export, we urge you to support the 
Mollohan amendment and restore these funds.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here from the State of Oregon, 
the coastal management program, which says that the Governor of Oregon 
supports the Mollohan amendment saying it would greatly help national 
coastal zone management programs which would be hurt by this bill if 
the Mollohan amendment is not adopted. We cannot, we must not, turn our 
backs on this important sector of our Nation's economy. It is 
probusiness, and it makes common sense to support the Mollohan 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to do that and to be probusiness.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the hard-working chairman of 
the full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to congratulate him 
and the distinguished ranking minority member for their outstanding 
work on a very important and very difficult bill, and I applaud their 
efforts and the efforts of all of their staff toward perfecting this 
bill, and I look forward to its passage, hopefully tonight.
  I know that the subcommittee chairman has carefully deliberated the 
issue of providing initial funding for what would be necessary to fund 
the first year of the maritime security program. I appreciate the 
assurances provided by him and the committee in the committee report. I 
also appreciate the assurances from the chairman that this issue will 
be revisited once the authorization committee, led by the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], takes action on this issue in the full 
House. I just wanted to assure myself that the gentleman does intend to 
readdress this once the authorization committee has had an opportunity 
to take a look at it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I assure my full committee chairman that I will look at 
this program again as the authorization moves toward enactment into 
law.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] on this important issue to our U.S.-flag merchant 
marine.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, in America, profits are soaring, wages 
are decreasing, and consumer demand is declining.
  And, what does the majority want this Congress to do? They want us to 
retreat, to cut and run.
  In light of these conditions, the magazine Business Week recently 
asked the question--are we headed for trouble?
  This appropriations bill reflects an attitude of defeat.
  Instead of competing in the global marketplace--where jobs can be 
found--the bill proposes to cut the Department of Commerce by 17 
percent.
  Instead of encouraging more small business development and self-
sufficiency-the bill cuts the SBA by 36 percent; cuts the Minority 
Business Development Agency by 27 percent; and cuts the Economic 
Development Agency by 21 percent.
  Instead of providing access to legal services for all Americans, 
regardless of income--this bill cuts the Legal Services Corporation by 
31 percent.
  This bill even provides $35 million less than the President requested 
for the equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, this Nation has been made strong because, traditionally 
we have lifted up our citizens.
  We have been able to export democracy by showcasing the values and 
benefits of our way of life and our standard of living.
  This bill puts citizens down, this bill promotes an attitude of 
isolation from the world marketplace. This bill does not adequately 
promote competition by small businesses. This bill is a withdrawal from 
the proud tradition of America and from the very principles that gives 
the Nation power.
  This bill ignores all these valuable economic and social values. 
Again this is a mindless march to a balanced budget without regards to 
the merits of the program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2076.
  H.R. 2076 provides for a 25-percent increase in funding of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service--a generous increase in a time 
of budget cutting.
  The resources provided in H.R. 2076 will go a long way in assisting 
INS in securing our borders. Given the size of its mission, INS has 
been underfunded for many years. I am happy to see that changing.
  The resources made available in H.R. 2076 support the enforcement 
provisions in my immigration bill, H.R. 1915. It adds 1,000 additional 
border patrol agents next year--plus support personnel--and increases 
new technology for the Border Patrol and for enforcement initiatives. 

[[Page H 7628]]

  H.R. 2076 adds to INS's capability to detain and remove deportable 
aliens, especially criminal aliens. It includes additional detention 
space, additional investigators and detention and deportation officers, 
and provides for the expansion of deportation procedures so that 
criminal aliens can be deported immediately upon release from prisons.
  Additionally, H.R. 2076 increases the resources available for 
enforcement of employer sanctions, another important tool in 
controlling illegal immigration.
  H.R. 2076 adds additional inspectors so that U.S. ports of entry can 
run more efficiently and smoothly, facilitating legal entries and 
prohibiting illegal entries by fraudulent documents.
  I strongly support H.R. 2076 and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have mixed feelings about this bill, as 
so many of us do. But I first want to take a moment to commend our 
chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], and the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], our ranking member, and our terrific 
staff for the work that they have put in on what's really an impossible 
task. We basically have a 4 by 4 that we are trying to squeeze into 
about a 2 by 2 slot. I just hope that the beam that we fashion in this 
bill, Mr. Chairman, is going to be strong enough to hold up the house 
that we have got to support.
  The task to fully fund this nation's law enforcement, research 
activities, diplomatic activities, judiciary activities, has really 
been made impossible by the inadequate funding allowed under the budget 
resolution. We have done a pretty good job by way of law enforcement 
and immigration efforts, but I am very concerned about what this bill 
will do in reducing several important areas of research, technology 
development, science, and the programs that also are our responsibility 
in connection with legal services.
  This bill, for instance, eliminates the advanced technology program, 
I think a very promising one, of the Commerce Department to help us 
further cutting edge technologies that are really going to be key to 
the economic well-being in this country in the long haul. We have 
reduced, although considerably less, the International Trade 
Administration, which has played an instrumental role in promoting 
exports, accounting for many hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs that 
depend upon our international trade. All of this is coming at a time 
when we face unprecedented challenges in terms of international 
competitiveness.
  I also want to speak for a moment about the important science and 
research work that goes on at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. They, too, contribute to the productivity of this 
country, as well as to our health and safety and our understanding, 
very important to our long-term economic success, our understanding of 
the planet that we live on, its climate, and the changes in that 
climate. That is why I am disappointed in the cuts to those programs.
  Finally I cannot conclude without commenting and expressing my great 
concern about the restrictions
 that are being imposed on the Legal Services Corporation. These 
restrictions will make it very difficult for Legal Services' lawyers 
adequately to represent their clients, and these restrictions apply not 
just to Government funds, but even to moneys raised privately. I think 
that is a grave mistake.

  I just wanted to go on record with these reservations about a bill 
that has been, as I said, terribly difficult to fashion as responsibly 
as the chairman of the committee has.
  I have mixed feelings about this bill. I must first commend Chairman 
Rogers, ranking member Mr. Mollohan and the staff of the subcommittee 
for their untiring efforts in the face of the impossible task placed 
before them. That task, to fully fund our Nation's important research, 
technology, crime fighting, and judiciary activities, has been made 
impossible by the inadequate funding allowed under the new budget 
resolution.
  In the bill we are considering, H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, and 
State Departments appropriations bill, the chairman has been able to 
provide generous funding for the overall Federal law enforcement 
effort. However, I am very concerned by the reductions in several of 
the research and technology development programs contained in the bill, 
as well as the costs to legal services.
  This bill eliminates funding for the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology's [NIST] Advanced Technology Program [ATP]. The ATP 
program provides a private industry-Government partnership to nurture 
cutting edge industrial technology that is either too high risk or too 
broad based for a single private
 company alone to afford to develop. It provides small, competitive 
grants to companies of all sizes for development of preproduct 
technology. These grants are matched by private funds and motivate 
private industry to take risks in product and technology development 
that otherwise would not occur, not because they lack merit or 
profitmaking potential, but because the payback in the short term is 
too problematic for purely private capital. This program promotes 
America's long-term economic interests and should be supported.

  While the International Trade Administration [ITA] has been spared 
large cuts in this bill, it too is reduced from current funding levels. 
Commerce export initiatives like those provided under ITA, alone have 
helped win almost $50 billion in overseas sales, including $25 billion 
in direct American exports. That translates to 300,000 jobs.
  These cuts come at a time when our industries face a global challenge 
as great as at any time in our history. They come at a time when we are 
finally beginning to win key battles in the war for global 
competitiveness. And they come at a time when every industrialized 
nation in the world is working to develop new technologies that would 
give them a competitive edge. It is important to our Nation's economic 
future that we continue programs like ATP to encourage and develop new 
technology and like ITA to support U.S. exports.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill also reduces funding for many of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's [NOAA] programs. NOAA's work 
contributes to a more productive and competitive nation. NOAA's mission 
is to protect life, property, marine and fisheries resources, and our 
Nation's coasts and oceans. It accomplishes its mission through 
research and monitoring of the condition of the atmosphere, oceans, and 
Great Lakes. NOAA predicts the weather, climate, and fisheries' 
productivity. In addition to the obvious importance of NOAA to the 
health of industries tied to coastal and marine life conditions, the 
work at NOAA is important to agribusiness, industries that have an 
impact on air quality, and the transportation and communications 
industries.
  In particular, NOAA's Environmental Research Laboratories [ERL] have 
documented damage to the ozone layer, determined its cause, and worked 
with industry to find alternatives to the compounds that caused the 
damage. ERL labs developed doppler radar and designed more accurate 
hurricane tracking systems to increase warning time to the public, 
which saves lives and give property owners more time to protect their 
property. This is valuable research that the private sector won't 
necessarily do.
  This is why I am disappointed in this bill's cuts funding for the 
Climate and Global Change Program which conducts research to
 develop long-term climate observation and prediction techniques, 
particularly for North America. This program also examines the role of 
ocean conditions on long-term climate changes and provides information 
to base important policy choices about the necessity or results of 
environmental and industry regulation.

  Mr. Chairman, the women and men at NOAA and NIST work hard and strive 
for excellence and deserve our full support. Their efforts have helped 
keep our Nation at the forefront in important areas of research and 
technology development.
  Finally, I can't conclude without mentioning my great concern about 
the burdensome restrictions placed on the Legal Services Corporation. 
What these restrictions do is make it difficult for LSC lawyers to 
fully represent their low-income clients. These restrictions include a 
prohibition on participating in any administrative rulemaking; on 
filing suits against any government, no matter how outrageously the 
government acts toward a client; on representing prisoners, no matter 
what their legal problems; and a requirement that all LSC services be 
bid out immediately, which will ultimately cause problems for the poor 
clients of LSC as legal services are shifted from low bidder to low 
bidder. These are just a few of the restrictions placed on LSC's 
ability to represent low-income people and the restrictions should be 
removed. And, to make matters worse, these restrictions will apply to 
services paid for with private contributions, if a legal services 
program takes any Federal funds.
  While I believe the chairman should be commended for his diligent 
efforts in such a difficult budgetary environment, I must say that I 
have reservations about several parts of this bill.

[[Page H 7629]]


                              {time}  1845

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the 
chairman to yield for a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a 
lower court decision declaring the 11th Congressional District of 
Georgia unconstitutional.
  This ruling found that Georgia's 11th District violated the Equal 
Protection Clause because race was the primary factor in its creation.
  Mr. Chairman, the district plan that was approved by the Department 
of Justice, and most recently found unconstitutional by the U.S. 
Supreme Court, was in fact the third redistricting plan submitted to 
the Department of Justice for approval.
  The first of three plans was created during a special session of the 
Georgia General Assembly in 1991, costing taxpayers over $1 million. 
This plan was rejected by the Department of Justice. The second 
redistricting plan was drawn during a regular session of Georgia's 
General Assembly in 1992. It was also rejected by the Department of 
Justice. The third district was created in 1992, according to the 
specific direction and guidelines offered by the Department, and was 
consequently approved by Justice officials.
  And now, Mr. Chairman, we must once again return to the drawing 
board, in yet another costly special session of the Georgia General 
assembly and come up with a fourth redistricting plan that will both 
meet the approval of the Department of Justice and meet the 
constitutionality test. This special session, currently scheduled for 
August 14 of this year, will cost the State of Georgia thousands per 
day. Depending on how long the session lasts, costs will again approach 
the million dollar mark for Georgians.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would require the Department 
of Justice to reimburse a State for the costs associated with holding a 
special session of the State legislature in order to redraw district 
lines that have been previously approved by the Department of Justice, 
but found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that my amendment requiring the Department of 
Justice to provide $2 million from its general administration account 
for the purpose of reimbursing States for the costs of special 
legislative sessions is not in order at this point.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the opportunity to work with 
you, and our counterparts in the other body, so that we can address 
this issue in the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record the text of my amendment.

 Amendment to H.R. 2076, as Reported Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia

       Page 28, after line 19, insert the following:


        reimbursement for special sessions of state legislatures

       For reimbursement by the Attorney General of States for 
     costs associated with special sessions of State legislatures 
     where the State is required to redraw congressional districts 
     that have been previously approved by the Department of 
     Justice but subsequently found unconstitutional by the United 
     States Supreme Court, $2,000,000.
       Page 2, line 7, strike ``$74,282,000'' and insert 
     ``$72,282,000''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised an important issue 
regarding actions taken by the Justice Department. I agree that this is 
an issue that warrants further discussion. I will be glad to work with 
the gentleman to develop the best approach to address that problem.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman I rise today in opposition to this bill, H.R. 2076. The 
American people have cried out for a real war on crime. Recently, in 
1994, we listened to their concerns and we passed a 1994 Crime Act, 
which promised 100,000 additional officers and funding for real law 
enforcement. Already over 20,000 additional police officers have been 
put on our streets as a result of the 1994 crime bill.
  Yet, today, H.R. 2076 does not guarantee one additional police 
officer to help our communities combat crime. Instead, this bill 
appropriates funding for a program that is not even authorized. The 
bill does eliminate the COPS program. I consider that a real mistake. 
COPS, Community Oriented Policing Services, works. It provides local 
communities with funds for law enforcement.
  Instead, this bill would waste $2 billion of taxpayer money with no 
specific goals. Proponents try to tell you it is a block grant 
approach. In my opinion, it is a block headed approach.
  Police departments will have to compete with every other agency that 
has any far-reaching relationship to public safety. Street lighting 
would be considered for funds. Street lights are nice, walkie-talkies 
are nice, roads leading to prisons are nice. But the COPS program 
establishes a clear priority, neighborhood police.
  County programs provide neighborhood police for apartment complexes 
in high crime neighborhoods, small towns would get additional police, 
where one or two police officers makes all the difference in the world.
  The program is working. My Congressional district alone has received 
76 additional police officers to help fight crime in my district. Why 
should we defund a program that works? The COPS program provides 
neighborhood police to local communities. It sets a clear priority.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need to talk about roads and lights and 
walkie-talkies and orange jackets. We need to talk about neighborhoods 
police. Congress should keep its promise to the American people. The 
1994 Crime Act is a superior bill. Community policing works. Let us let 
local communities have local law enforcement personnel.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the House Commerce, Justice Appropriations 
Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the proposed language contained in 
the committee report on H.R. 2076 regarding the hiring and placement of 
INS investigation, detention, and border patrol agents.
  While I strongly support the subcommittee's goal to increase the 
number of INS personnel along the southern border of the United States, 
I am concerned that the language of the Committee Report may result in 
the further weakening of an already inadequate INS and border patrol 
presence in the Nation's interior agricultural areas.
  In my own Fourth Congressional District of Washington, the illegal 
immigration problem has forced the INS office in Yakima to shut down 
its telephone service. A local newspaper recently reported that during 
a raid in the Yakima Valley this spring, the border patrol found that 
23 out of 25 migrant workers were illegal immigrants, and 12 of them 
were using someone else's social security number.
  In addition, Franklin county jail estimates that in 1994, an average 
of 50 percent of its inmate population consisted of illegal aliens, 
many of whom remained in the county jail at taxpayer expense simply 
because there were not enough border patrol agents to transfer them for 
deportation.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation must not only protect its borders from the 
influx of illegal immigration, but it must also seek to control 
document fraud and remove those illegal aliens already here. To do 
that, we need to maintain a strong INS presence in the interior as well
 as along the southern border.

  I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if interior 
congressional districts may be assured that Members and INS regional 
directors will be consulted before final INS hiring and relocating 
decisions are made?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the committee's recommendation for the 
transfer of border patrol agents from interior locations assumes that 
these personnel will be backfilled with INS investigators to ensure 
that document fraud and the removal of illegal aliens that are already 
here continues to be addressed.

[[Page H 7630]]

  I can assure you that Members will be consulted before allocation of 
any new positions or the relocation of any current INS personnel 
occurs. I will also work with the Commissioner of INS to ensure that 
the INS regional directors are involved in this process, and that 
criteria such as detained illegal aliens are used in these decisions.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking Member for yielding 
time. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking Member for 
their hard work under difficult conditions, but I must oppose H.R. 
2076. There are so many things wrong with this bill that I believe the 
President is right to say that this bill is dead on arrival if it gets 
to his desk in this form.
  Mr. Chairman, why do the Republicans eliminate the Advanced 
Technology Program established by President Bush? ATP provides 
assistance to U.S. businesses to promote commercial use of cutting edge 
technology. ATP is designed to increase U.S. competitiveness. Every 
major industrialized country has private sector government cooperative 
programs designed to increase their country's competitiveness in this 
world economy. Incredibly, this bill terminates our own program. That 
is like unilateral disarmament in the midst of a war.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill eliminates funding for the Office of Advocacy 
in the SBA, which represents the interests of small businesses within 
the Federal Government. Just this year, just months ago, 415 Members of 
Congress voted to strengthen the Office of Advocacy's role as a small 
business ombudsman in the regulatory process. Now, just a few months 
later, the promise becomes a joke if this bill is passed.
  Mr. Chairman, at least the Legal Services Corporation is not 
eliminated; it is merely cut by 30 percent. But this bill would 
prohibit for the first time ever the Corporation from spending private 
funds it raises on activities for which it currently cannot spend 
funds.
  I know how unpopular legal services is to some. It is quite all right 
to ignore the unconscionable waste that goes on in military 
contracting, and it is okay for billionaires to renounce their homeland 
to avoid paying taxes. But Republicans are more than willing to attack 
a program that dares to help the poor obtain justice in this country.
  Women from all walks of life are victims of the violence done to them 
in this appropriations bill. The Violence Against Women Act was 
approved by the House last Congress by a vote of 421 to zero. Now, how 
can all those Republicans, Members who voted yes last year, justify 
what they are doing less than a year later? Appropriators with mock 
sincerity say they are actually spending more to combat violence 
against women than last year. Well, how nice. But this bill 
appropriates less than one-third of the funding authorized for battered 
women shelters, rape prevention, child abuse prosecution, and other 
domestic violence programs.
  Finally, this bill defunds the very successful community cops 
policing program established by last year's crime bill. It instead 
redirects these funds to a block grant program that is not even law. 
This again underscores the hypocrisy of the policies being pushed in 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, community policing works. Communities big and small 
want community cops. They like what they have seen with community 
policing. What the Republicans are doing is simply partisan politics.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge fellow Members to vote against this bill so that 
the appropriators can do the right thing. We can do that now, or we can 
do that in October or November when we most certainly will have to 
after the veto.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the very distinguished and hard working 
chairman of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman for the work he has 
done here. He has worked very closely with the Committee on Science on 
this commerce appropriations bill. I want to publicly thank the 
gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for his full and complete 
consultation, and hold him up as an example of someone who is 
responsible for making the process work, and also make it work right.
  Although it is a tough and thankless mission, Hal Rogers has made the 
cuts to start balancing the budget, and he has made them, in my view, 
in a very wise way.
  The NOAA appropriations largely track H.R. 1815, the fiscal year 1996 
NOAA authorization bill passed by the Committee on Science last month. 
The appropriation bill includes $1.69 billion of budget authority for 
the NOAA operations research and facilities account, which funds almost 
all of NOAA's programs. That is exactly the level that was authorized.
  With a few exceptions, including funding for modernizing the NOAA 
fleet, the Sea Grant Program, and the lack of funding for the Coastal 
Oceans Program, the bill is consistent with the authorization to the 
amounts that were put into H.R. 1815.
  Specifically, H.R. 1815 and H.R. 2076 both include $472 million for 
the operations of the National Weather Service, $132 million for the 
National Weather Service systems acquisition, $435 million for NOAA's 
satellite programs, $36 million for the satellite data management, and 
$128 million for program support.
  While the bill includes some increases over H.R. 1815 in both the 
oceanic and atmospheric research in the national ocean service 
accounts, the overall appropriation for NOAA is the same, and ensures 
that NOAA's priority core missions receive continued funding, while 
NOAA's overall budget is decreased from its 1995 level.
  Today, for the first time, we have before us an appropriation for 
NOAA which is largely consistent with the NOAA authorization. Perhaps, 
most importantly in this particular bill, the Commerce appropriations 
bill terminates a targeted $500 million program. H.R. 2076 zeros out 
all of the advanced technology program, which is an ill-advised 
industrial policy program.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts made the point a moment ago that it 
was something done during the Bush administration. That is right. We 
are willing to take on programs, even some of those created by 
Republicans. This House is doing so much more for commercial product 
and technology development through things like tax cuts, regulation 
reform, and product liability reform, than any amount of government 
subsidy of a program like ATP could ever do.
  At the same time, the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, funds 
the core research program at the National Institute of Standards and 
Technologies as a priority, and I think that also is the kind of thing 
that helps us increase our competitiveness.
  Once again, I would like to thank and compliment the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for his good work, and urge all of my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2076.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
  (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and also 
in favor of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
  The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which was established under the 
1955 U.S. Canadian Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, plays a 
critical role in protecting the health of the Great Lakes' $4 billion 
fishery industry.
  The commission consists of eight commissioners, four appointed by the 
President and four by the Prime Minister of Canada. It is funded 
through a 69-percent to 31-percent cost share agreement between the 
United States and Canada respectively. The benefits of this commission 
are enjoyed by the United States, Canada, and the tribes.
  Because the commission coordinates effective fishery management 
strategies throughout the region and coordinates binational natural 
resources in the Great Lakes region, it is imperative that the Great 
Lakes Fishery Commission continue to be funded through the State 
Department. We have spent many years cultivating a good relationship 
between nations and tribes.
  Although the Great Lakes have definite boundaries on paper, taken as 
a whole, this is 

[[Page H 7631]]

one massive region used and shared by many. Hence, if there is a 
problem in the Great Lakes in Canada, it becomes the problem of the 
Great Lakes in the United States.
  It was just such a crossing-all-borders problem that actually spurred 
the formation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
  The ``problem'' of which I speak, Mr. Chairman, has been described as 
slimy, ruthless, unsightly, heinous, scum-sucking and parasitic, words 
which ironically have all been used at least a time or two to describe 
certain members of Congress. But I assure you Mr. Speaker, these words 
in this instance are reserved for an ell-like species that is wreaking 
havoc on the Great Lakes--the sea lamprey.
  For those who are not familiar with the sea lamprey, let me assure 
you this is not something you'd want in your backyard. In the Great 
Lakes we have seen an invasion of this eel-like, nonindigenous species. 
And, in addition to being just a hideous looking thing, the sea lamprey 
is parasitic and can destroy 10 to 40 pounds of fish during its 
parasitic period.
  This slimy eel-like thing just clamps onto its prey and devours it. 
If you've ever had the misfortune of seeing footage of the lamprey in 
action, suffice it to say you should just be thankful it doesn't do to 
people what it does to fish.
  It's the kind of creature you'd expect Steven Spielberg to invent to 
scare the bejeepers out of us in theaters. It is so vicious, so deadly 
and leaves behind so horrid carnage that if you made a movie about it, 
it'd make ``Jaws'' look like ``Free Willy'' and ``Jurassic Park'' look 
like ``Barney.'' But unfortunately, the sea lamprey is no Hollywood 
special effects creation, it's real. And it also is a very real threat 
to the health and future of the Great Lakes.
  Before the creation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the sea 
lamprey virtually destroyed the entire region's prosperous recreational 
and commercial fisheries. It practically wiped it out. However, through 
the use of lampricide to control larval lamprey in streams, the 
commission has been able to reduce the lamprey population to 10 percent 
of historical abundance.
  Furthermore, the commission also is examining several nonchemical 
methods for controlling the sea lamprey, such as sterilization of the 
male lamprey. Lamprey research, like our fishery management plan, is 
something best handled jointly between the United States, Canada and 
tribes.
  We cannot backslide on these efforts, as the future health and growth 
of the Great Lakes' fisheries is dependent upon our efforts to control, 
and hopefully one day, eradicate forces like the sea lamprey and zebra 
mussel.
  For this reason, and the many other strategies employed by the Great 
Lakes Fishery Commission, I urge that the funding be maintained through 
the State Department.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the chairman and to the 
ranking member that you two gentlemen are one reason why America is 
starting to get control of our borders, because a couple of years ago 
you started increasing the Border Patrol. And you did it in a difficult 
time. You did it at times over the objection of the administration. And 
because of that, you have started this trend of taking border patrol 
men, who are presently stationed in the interior, moving them to the 
border, forward deploying them, which is one thing the studies done by 
Los Alamos Laboratory said we should do, one thing the studies by GAO 
said we should do.
  Additionally, this year you are adding some 700 new border patrol 
agents, those are used in the smugglers corridor between San Diego and 
Tijuana, the most prolific smugglers corridor in America, who greatly 
appreciate your attention to the border.
  We have 12 smugglers corridors across the Southwest, from San Diego 
to Tijuana, all the way to Brownsville, Texas, to Matamoros, Mexico.
  I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for this attention to the border, and the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. Because of you we are 
finally starting to get control of the border, and those of us in 
California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona will work with you very 
closely to see to it that we finish this job.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by titles, and each title shall be considered as having been read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
                               H.R. 2076

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, namely:

                     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $74,282,000; including not to exceed 
     $3,317,000 for the Facilities Program 2000, and including 
     $5,000,000 for management and oversight of Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service activities, both sums to remain 
     available until expended.


                         counterterrorism fund

       For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney 
     General, $26,898,000, to remain available until expended, to 
     reimburse any Department of Justice organization for (1) the 
     costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability 
     of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed 
     as a result of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal 
     Building in Oklahoma City or any domestic or international 
     terrorist incident, (2) the costs of providing support to 
     counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international 
     terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with 
     these activities, and (3) the costs of conducting a terrorism 
     threat assessment of Federal agencies and their facilities: 
     Provided, That funds provided under this section shall be 
     available only after the Attorney General notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act.


                   administrative review and appeals

       For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and 
     clemency petitions and immigration related activities, 
     $39,736,000.


  violent crime reduction programs, administrative review and appeals

       For activities authorized by sections 130005 and 130007 of 
     Public Law 103-322, $47,780,000, to remain available until 
     expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $30,484,000; including not to exceed 
     $10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
     character, to be expended under the direction of, and to be 
     accounted for solely under the certificate of, the Attorney 
     General; and for the acquisition, lease, maintenance and 
     operation of motor vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitation.

                    United States Parole Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized by law, $5,446,000.

                            Legal Activities


            Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     activities authorized by title X of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964, and including not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of 
     collecting evidence, to be expended under the direction of, 
     and to be accounted for solely under the certificate of, the 
     Attorney General; and rent of private or Government-owned 
     space in the District of Columbia; $401,929,000; of which not 
     to exceed $10,000,000 for litigation support contracts shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds 
     available in this appropriation, not to exceed $22,618,000 
     shall remain available until expended for office automation 
     systems for the legal divisions covered by this 
     appropriation, and for the United States Attorneys, the 
     Antitrust Division, and offices funded through ``Salaries and 
     Expenses'', General Administration: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall be 
     available to the United States National Central Bureau, 
     INTERPOL, for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1342, the 
     Attorney General may accept on behalf of the United States 
     and credit to this appropriation, gifts of money, personal 
     property and services, for the purpose of hosting the 
     International Criminal Police Organization's (INTERPOL) 
     American Regional Conference in the United States during 
     fiscal year 1996.
       In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to 
     exceed $4,028,000, to be appropriated from the 

[[Page H 7632]]
     Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, as authorized by section 6601 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1989, as amended by 
     Public Law 101-512 (104 Stat. 1289).


       violent crime reduction programs, general legal activities

       For the expeditious deportation of denied asylum 
     applicants, as authorized by section 130005 of Public Law 
     103-322, $7,591,000, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund.


               Salaries and Expenses, Antitrust Division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, $69,143,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, not to exceed $48,262,000 of 
     offsetting collections derived from fees collected for 
     premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
     Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     General Fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections 
     are received during fiscal year 1996, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 1996 appropriation from the General Fund 
     estimated at not more than $20,881,000: Provided further, 
     That any fees received in excess of $48,262,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996, shall remain available until expended, but shall 
     not be available for obligation until October 1, 1996.


             Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Attorneys, including intergovernmental agreements, 
     $896,825,000, of which not to exceed $2,500,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 1997 for the purposes of (1) 
     providing training of personnel of the Department of Justice 
     in debt collection, (2) providing services to the Department 
     of Justice related to locating debtors and their property, 
     such as title searches, debtor skiptracing, asset searches, 
     credit reports and other investigations, (3) paying the costs 
     of the Department of Justice for the sale of property not 
     covered by the sale proceeds, such as auctioneers' fees and 
     expenses, maintenance and protection of property and 
     businesses, advertising and title search and surveying costs, 
     and (4) paying the costs of processing and tracking debts 
     owed to the United States Government: Provided, That of the 
     total amount appropriated, not to exceed $8,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $10,000,000 of those 
     funds available for automated litigation support contracts 
     and $4,000,000 for security equipment shall remain available 
     until expended.


       violent crime reduction programs, united states attorneys

       For activities authorized by sections 190001(d), 40114 and 
     130005 of Public Law 103-322, $14,731,000, to remain 
     available until expended, which shall be derived from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of which $5,000,000 shall 
     be available to help meet increased demands for litigation 
     and related activities, $500,000 to implement a program to 
     appoint additional Federal Victim's Counselors, and 
     $9,231,000 for expeditious deportation of denied asylum 
     applicants.


                   united states trustee system fund

       For the necessary expenses of the United States Trustee 
     Program, $101,596,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 589a(a), to 
     remain available until expended, for activities authorized by 
     section 115 of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, 
     and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-554), 
     which shall be derived from the United States Trustee System 
     Fund: Provided, That deposits to the Fund are available in 
     such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds due 
     depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $44,191,000 of offsetting 
     collections derived from fees collected pursuant to section 
     589a(f) of title 28, United States Code, as amended, shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That the $101,596,000 herein 
     appropriated from the United States Trustee System Fund shall 
     be reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 1996, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1996 
     appropriation from such Fund estimated at not more than 
     $57,405,000: Provided further, That any of the aforementioned 
     fees collected in excess of $44,191,000 in fiscal year 1996 
     shall remain available until expended, but shall not be 
     available for obligation until October 1, 1996.


      Salaries and Expenses, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $830,000.


         Salaries and Expenses, United States Marshals Service

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service; including the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and 
     operation of vehicles and aircraft, and the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles for police-type use without regard 
     to the general purchase price limitation for the current 
     fiscal year; $418,973,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i), 
     of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses.


    violent crime reduction programs, united states marshals service

       For activities authorized by section 190001(b) of Public 
     Law 103-322, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund.


                   support of united states prisoners

       For support of United States prisoners in the custody of 
     the United States Marshals Service as authorized in 18 U.S.C. 
     4013, but not including expenses otherwise provided for in 
     appropriations available to the Attorney General; 
     $250,331,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i), to remain 
     available until expended.


                     Fees and Expenses of Witnesses

       For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of 
     witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and 
     supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel 
     expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as 
     authorized by law, including advances, $85,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended; of which not to exceed $4,750,000 
     may be made available for planning, construction, renovation, 
     maintenance, remodeling, and repair of buildings and the 
     purchase of equipment incident thereto for protected witness 
     safesites; of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may be made 
     available for the purchase and maintenance of armored 
     vehicles for transportation of protected witnesses; and of 
     which not to exceed $4,000,000 may be made available for the 
     purchase, installation and maintenance of a secure automated 
     information network to store and retrieve the identities and 
     locations of protected witnesses.


                         Assets Forfeiture Fund

       For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(A)(ii), (B), 
     (C), (F), and (G), as amended, $35,000,000 to be derived from 
     the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.

                    Radiation Exposure Compensation


                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses in accordance with 
     the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, $2,655,000.


         Payment to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund

       For payments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust 
     Fund, $16,264,000, to become available on October 1, 1996.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation, 
     and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime 
     drug trafficking not otherwise provided for, to include 
     intergovernmental agreements with State and local law 
     enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, $374,943,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That any amounts 
     obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used 
     under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed 
     from this appropriation: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated balances remaining available at the end of the 
     fiscal year shall revert to the Attorney General for 
     reallocation among participating organizations in succeeding 
     fiscal years, subject to the reprogramming procedures 
     described in section 605 of this Act.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for detection, investigation, and 
     prosecution of crimes against the United States; including 
     purchase for police-type use of not to exceed 1,815 passenger 
     motor vehicles of which 1,300 will be for replacement only, 
     without regard to the general purchase price limitation for 
     the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation of 
     aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
     the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
     certificate of, the Attorney General; $2,251,481,000, of 
     which not to exceed $50,000,000 for automated data processing 
     and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment 
     and $1,000,000 for undercover operations shall remain 
     available until September 30, 1997; of which not to exceed 
     $14,000,000 for research and development related to 
     investigative activities shall remain available until 
     expended; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 is authorized to 
     be made available for making payments or advances for 
     expenses arising out of contractual or reimbursable 
     agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies 
     while engaged in cooperative activities related to violent 
     crime, terrorism, organized crime, and drug investigations; 
     and of which $1,500,000 shall be available to maintain an 
     independent program office dedicated solely to the relocation 
     of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division and the 
     automation of fingerprint identification services: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $45,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     $50,000,000 for expenses related to digital telephony shall 
     be available for obligation only upon enactment of 
     authorization legislation.


                    violent crime reduction programs

       For activities authorized by Public Law 103-322, 
     $80,600,000, to remain available until 

[[Page H 7633]]
     expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund, of which $35,000,000 shall be for activities authorized 
     by section 190001(c); $27,800,000 for activities authorized 
     by section 190001(b); $4,000,000 for Training and 
     Investigative Assistance authorized by section 210501(c)(2); 
     $8,300,000 for training facility improvements at the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation Academy at Quantico, Virginia 
     authorized by section 210501(c)(3); and $5,500,000 for 
     establishing DNA quality assurance and proficiency testing 
     standards, establishing an index to facilitate law 
     enforcement exchange of DNA identification information, and 
     related activities authorized by section 210306.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of federally-owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects; $98,400,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be 
     expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; 
     expenses for conducting drug education and training programs, 
     including travel and related expenses for participants in 
     such programs and the distribution of items of token value 
     that promote the goals of such programs; purchase of not to 
     exceed 1,208 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,178 will be 
     for replacement only, for police-type use without regard to 
     the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year; and acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft; $781,488,000, of which not to exceed $1,800,000 for 
     research and $15,000,000 for transfer to the Drug Diversion 
     Control Fee Account for operating expenses shall remain 
     available until expended, and of which not to exceed 
     $4,000,000 for purchase of evidence and payments for 
     information, not to exceed $4,000,000 for contracting for ADP 
     and telecommunications equipment, and not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 for technical and laboratory equipment shall 
     remain available until September 30, 1997, and of which not 
     to exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses.


                    violent crime reduction programs

       For Drug Enforcement Administration agents authorized by 
     section 180104 of Public Law 103-322, $12,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, which shall be derived from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, 
     including not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
     the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
     certificate of, the Attorney General; purchase for police-
     type use (not to exceed 813 of which 177 are for replacement 
     only) without regard to the general purchase price limitation 
     for the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation of 
     aircraft; and research related to immigration enforcement; 
     $1,421,481,000, of which not to exceed $400,000 for research 
     shall remain available until expended, and of which not to 
     exceed $10,000,000 shall be available for costs associated 
     with the training program for basic officer training: 
     Provided, That none of the funds available to the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service shall be available for 
     administrative expenses to pay any employee overtime pay in 
     an amount in excess of $25,000 during the calendar year 
     beginning January 1, 1996: Provided further, That uniforms 
     may be purchased without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     the Attorney General may transfer to the Department of Labor 
     and the Social Security Administration not to exceed 
     $30,000,000 for programs to verify the immigration status of 
     persons seeking employment in the United States: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be used to operate the Border Patrol traffic checkpoints 
     located in San Clemente, California, at interstate highway 5 
     and in Temecula, California, at interstate highway 15.


                    violent crime reduction programs

       For activities authorized by sections 130005, 130006, 
     130007, and 190001(b) of Public Law 103-322, $303,542,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall be derived from 
     the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of which $44,089,000 
     shall be for expeditious deportation of denied asylum 
     applicants, $218,800,000 for improving border controls, 
     $35,153,000 for expanded special deportation proceedings, and 
     $5,500,000 for border patrol equipment.


                              Construction

       For planning, construction, renovation, equipping and 
     maintenance of buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, not 
     otherwise provided for, $11,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                         Federal Prison System


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration, operation, 
     and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional 
     institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 853, of which 
     559 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and 
     passenger motor vehicles; and for the provision of technical 
     assistance and advice on corrections related issues to 
     foreign governments; $2,574,578,000: Provided, That there may 
     be transferred to the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration such amounts as may be necessary, in the 
     discretion of the Attorney General, for direct expenditures 
     by that Administration for medical relief for inmates of 
     Federal penal and correctional institutions: Provided 
     further, That the Director of the Federal Prison System 
     (FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with a 
     fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to 
     determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of 
     the FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to 
     the custody of the FPS: Provided further, That uniforms may 
     be purchased without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $50,000,000 for the activation of new 
     facilities shall remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts provided for Contract 
     Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements and other expenses 
     authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 for the care and security in the 
     United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants.


                    violent crime reduction programs

       For substance abuse treatment in Federal prisons as 
     authorized by section 32001(e) of Public Law 103-322, 
     $13,500,000, to remain available until expended, which shall 
     be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; leasing the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Facility; 
     purchase and acquisition of facilities and remodeling and 
     equipping of such facilities for penal and correctional use, 
     including all necessary expenses incident thereto, by 
     contract or force account; and constructing, remodeling, and 
     equipping necessary buildings and facilities at existing 
     penal and correctional institutions, including all necessary 
     expenses incident thereto, by contract or force account; 
     $323,728,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $14,074,000 shall be available to construct 
     areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That labor of 
     United States prisoners may be used for work performed under 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That not to exceed 10 
     percent of the funds appropriated to ``Buildings and 
     Facilities'' in this Act or any other Act may be transferred 
     to ``Salaries and Expenses,'' Federal Prison System upon 
     notification by the Attorney General to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in compliance with provisions set forth in section 605 of 
     this Act: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, not to exceed $22,351,000 shall be available 
     for the renovation and construction of United States Marshals 
     Service prisoner holding facilities.


                federal prison industries, incorporated

       The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with 
     the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104 
     of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase 
     of (not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.


   Limitation on Administrative Expenses, Federal Prison Industries, 
                              Incorporated

       Not to exceed $3,559,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an 
     accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which the said accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           Justice Assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the 

[[Page H 7634]]
     Missing Children's Assistance Act, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith, and with the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984, as amended, $97,977,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 1001 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as 
     amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524).


          violent crime reduction programs, justice assistance

       For assistance (including amounts for administrative costs 
     for management and administration, which amounts shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' 
     account) authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 (``the 1994 
     Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the Victims of Child 
     Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990 Act''), 
     $102,400,000, to remain available until expended, which shall 
     be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund; of 
     which $6,000,000 shall be for the Court Appointed Special 
     Advocate Program, as authorized by section 218 of the 1990 
     Act; $750,000 for Child Abuse Training Programs for Judicial 
     Personnel and Practitioners, as authorized by section 224 of 
     the 1990 Act; $32,750,000 for Grants to Combat Violence 
     Against Women, as authorized by section 1001(a)(18) of the 
     1968 Act; $28,000,000 for Grants to Encourage Arrest 
     Policies, as authorized by section 1001(a)(19) of the 1968 
     Act; $7,000,000 for Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse 
     Enforcement Assistance Grants, as authorized by section 40295 
     of the 1994 Act; $27,000,000 for grants for Residential 
     Substance Abuse Treatment For State Prisoners, as authorized 
     by section 1001(a)(17) of the 1968 Act; and $900,000 for the 
     Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, as 
     authorized by section 240001(d) of the 1994 Act: Provided 
     further, That any balances for these programs shall be 
     transferred to and merged with this appropriation.


               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for 
     State and Local Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance 
     Improvements, notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 
     of said Act, $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by section 1001 of title I of said Act, as 
     amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), which shall 
     be available only to carry out the provisions of chapter A of 
     subpart 2 of part E of title I of said Act, for discretionary 
     grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Programs: Provided further, That 
     balances of amounts appropriated prior to fiscal year 1995 
     under the authorities of this account shall be transferred to 
     and merged with this account.


   violent crime reduction programs, state and local law enforcement 
                               assistance

       For assistance (including amounts for administrative costs 
     for management and administration, which amounts shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' 
     account) authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 (``the 1994 
     Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the Victims of Child 
     Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990 Act''), 
     $3,333,343,000, to remain available until expended, which 
     shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund; 
     of which $2,000,000,000 shall be for Local Law Enforcement 
     Block Grants, pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on February 14, 1995; $25,000,000 for grants 
     to upgrade criminal records, as authorized by section 106(b) 
     of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, as 
     amended, and section 4(b) of the National Child Protection 
     Act of 1993; $475,000,000 as authorized by section 1001 of 
     title I of the 1968 Act, which shall be available to carry 
     out the provisions of subpart 1, part E of title I of the 
     1968 Act, notwithstanding section 511 of said Act, for the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Programs; $300,000,000 for the State Criminal 
     Alien Assistance Program, as authorized by section 501 of the 
     Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended; 
     $19,643,000 for Youthful Offender Incarceration Grants, as 
     authorized by section 1001(a)(16) of the 1968 Act; 
     $500,000,000 for Truth in Sentencing Grants pursuant to 
     section 101 of H.R. 667 as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on February 10, 1995 of which not to exceed 
     $200,000,000 is available for payments to States for 
     incarceration of criminal aliens pursuant to section 508 as 
     proposed by such section 101; $1,000,000 for grants to States 
     and units of local government for projects to improve DNA 
     analysis, as authorized by section 1001(a)(22) of the 1968 
     Act; $10,000,000 for Improved Training and Technical 
     Automation Grants, as authorized by section 210501(c)(1) of 
     the 1994 Act; $200,000 for grants to assist in establishing 
     and operating programs for the prevention, diagnosis, 
     treatment and followup care of tuberculosis among inmates of 
     correctional institutions, as authorized by section 
     32201(c)(3) of the 1994 Act; $1,500,000 for Motor Vehicle 
     Theft Prevention Programs, as authorized by section 220002(h) 
     of the 1994 Act; $1,000,000 for Gang Investigation 
     Coordination and Information Collection, as authorized by 
     section 150006 of the 1994 Act: Provided, That funds made 
     available in fiscal year 1996 under subpart 1 of part E of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968, as amended, may be obligated for programs to assist 
     States in the litigation processing of death penalty Federal 
     habeas corpus petitions: Provided further, That any 1995 
     balances for these programs shall be transferred to and 
     merged with this appropriation.


                       Weed and Seed Program Fund

       For necessary expenses, including salaries and related 
     expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to 
     implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, $23,500,000, 
     of which $13,500,000 shall be derived from discretionary 
     grants provided under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and 
     Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs and $10,000,000 
     shall be derived from discretionary grants provided under 
     part C of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act, to remain available until expended for 
     intergovernmental agreements, including grants, cooperative 
     agreements, and contracts, with State and local law 
     enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of violent crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and 
     Seed'' designated communities, and for either reimbursements 
     or transfers to appropriation accounts of the Department of 
     Justice and other Federal agencies which shall be specified 
     by the Attorney General to execute the ``Weed and Seed'' 
     program strategy: Provided, That funds designated by Congress 
     through language for other Department of Justice 
     appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed'' program 
     activities shall be managed and executed by the Attorney 
     General through the Executive Office for Weed and Seed: 
     Provided further, That the Attorney General may direct the 
     use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in 
     support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after 
     the Attorney General notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in accordance with section 605 of this Act.


                       Juvenile Justice Programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith to be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriations for Justice Assistance, 
     $144,000,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized by section 299 of part I of title II and section 
     506 of title V of the Act, as amended by Public Law 102-586, 
     of which: (1) $100,000,000 shall be available for expenses 
     authorized by parts A, B, and C of title II of the Act; (2) 
     $10,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by 
     sections 281 and 282 of part D of title II of the Act for 
     prevention and treatment programs relating to juvenile gangs; 
     (3) $10,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by 
     section 285 of part E of title II of the Act; (4) $4,000,000 
     shall be available for expenses authorized by part G of title 
     II of the Act for juvenile mentoring programs; and (5) 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by 
     title V of the Act for incentive grants for local delinquency 
     prevention programs.
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act of 1990, as amended, $4,500,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 214B, of the Act: 
     Provided, That balances of amounts appropriated prior to 
     fiscal year 1995 under the authorities of this account shall 
     be transferred to and merged with this account.


                    Public Safety Officers Benefits

       For payments authorized by part L of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), 
     as amended, such sums as are necessary, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law 
     100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340), and, in addition, $2,134,000, 
     to remain available until expended, for payments as 
     authorized by section 1201(b) of said Act.

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

       Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available 
     in this title for official reception and representation 
     expenses, a total of not to exceed $45,000 from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall 
     be available to the Attorney General for official reception 
     and representation expenses in accordance with distributions, 
     procedures, and regulations established by the Attorney 
     General.
       Sec. 102. Subject to section 102(b) of the Department of 
     Justice and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993, as 
     amended by section 112 of this Act, authorities contained in 
     Public Law 96-132, ``The Department of Justice Appropriation 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1980,'' shall remain in effect 
     until the termination date of this Act or until the effective 
     date of a Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization 
     Act, whichever is earlier.
       Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated by this title 
     shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the 
     life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
     carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That 
     should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null 
     and void.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any 

[[Page H 7635]]
     person to perform, or facilitate in any way the performance of, any 
     abortion.
       Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the 
     obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in the Act 
     may be used to pay rewards and shall not be subject to 
     spending limitations contained in sections 3059 and 3072 of 
     title 18, United States Code: Provided, That any reward of 
     $100,000 or more, up to a maximum of $2,000,000, may not be 
     made without the personal approval of the President or the 
     Attorney General and such approval may not be delegated.
       Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Justice in this Act, including those derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, 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 this 
     section shall not apply to any appropriation made available 
     in title I of this Act under the heading, ``Office of Justice 
     Programs, Justice Assistance'': 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. 108. For fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, amounts in the Federal Prison System's Commissary 
     Fund, Federal Prisons, which are not currently needed for 
     operations, shall be kept on deposit or invested in 
     obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United States and all 
     earnings on such investments shall be deposited in the 
     Commissary Fund.
       Sec. 109. Section 524(c)(9) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding subparagraph (E), as follows:
       ``(E) Subject to the notification procedures contained in 
     section 605 of Public Law 103-121, and after satisfying the 
     transfer requirement in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, 
     any excess unobligated balance remaining in the Fund on 
     September 30, 1995 shall be available to the Attorney 
     General, without fiscal year limitation, for any Federal law 
     enforcement, litigative/prosecutive, and correctional 
     activities, or any other authorized purpose of the Department 
     of Justice. Any amounts provided pursuant to this 
     subparagraph may be used under authorities available to the 
     organization receiving the funds.''.
       Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       (1) no transfers may be made from Department of Justice 
     accounts other than those authorized in this Act, or in 
     previous or subsequent appropriations Acts for the Department 
     of Justice, or in part II of title 28 of the United States 
     Code, or in section 10601 of title 42 of the United States 
     Code; and
       (2) no appropriation account within the Department of 
     Justice shall have its allocation of funds controlled by 
     other than an apportionment issued by the Office of 
     Management and Budget or an allotment advice issued by the 
     Department of Justice.
       Sec. 111. (a) Section 1930(a)(6) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``a plan is confirmed or''.
       (b) Section 589a(b)(5) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``;'' and inserting, ``until a reorganization plan is 
     confirmed;''.
       (c) Section 589a(f) of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``.'' and inserting, 
     ``until a reorganization plan is confirmed;'', and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) 100 percent of the fees collected under section 
     1930(a)(6) of this title after a reorganization plan is 
     confirmed.''.
       Sec. 112. Public Law 102-395, section 102 is amended as 
     follows: (1) in subsection (b)(1) strike ``years 1993, 1994, 
     and 1995'' and insert ``year 1996''; (2) in subsection 
     (b)(1)(C) strike ``years 1993, 1994, and 1995'' and insert 
     ``year 1996''; and (3) in subsection (b)(5)(A) strike ``years 
     1993, 1994, and 1995'' and insert ``year 1996''.
       Sec. 113. Public Law 101-515 (104 Stat. 2112; 28 U.S.C. 534 
     note) is amended by inserting ``and criminal justice 
     information'' after ``for the automation of fingerprint 
     identification''.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title I?


                   amendment offered by mr. mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan: On page 24, line 6 
     strike, ``$2,000,000,000'', and all that follows through 
     ``1995'' on line 9, and insert the following:
       ``1,767,000,000 shall be for Public Safety and Community 
     Policing Grants authorized by section 10003 of the 1994 Act; 
     and $233,000,000 shall be for carrying out the crime 
     prevention programs authorized under sections 30202, 30307, 
     30702, 31904, 31921, 32101, 40102, and 50001 of the 1994 
     Act.''

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the time 
be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I would like to comment on the appreciation expressed by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], to the gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Rogers] and myself for our efforts with regard to INS and our 
funding last year and this year to enhance border enforcement and to 
work to try to secure our border. We certainly have worked in that 
regard.
  Mr. Hunter last year was very much in the forefront of that. I 
appreciate his kind of remarks, and we appreciate his efforts in that 
regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to title I of H.R. 2076, 
the fiscal year 1996 appropriate bill for the Department of Commerce, 
Justice, State, and the Judiciary, and related agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly, this amendment is not the amendment that I 
wanted to offer at this time. At the full committee, it became 
apparent, it became apparent in subcommittee, as we were marking it up, 
but we were not going to put any money on the COPS program, the program 
that is out there right now working for America, the program that has 
brought approximately 20,000 police officers to local communities 
virtually in every congressional district in this country, that is 
doing a good job, by all accounts, both administratively and 
substantially in fighting crime on the streets. It became apparent in 
subcommittee that we were not going to fund the COPS program. Although 
we had passed it in the crime bill last year. Although the Justice 
Department has implemented it by any account in a very efficient, 
effective way, although many communities are relying on it, have spent 
time, filed their grants, and expect for those grants to be funded for 
the next three years because they had been granted by the Federal 
Government, we are not funding it in this bill.
  So today as it stands, tonight, throughout the country, as the law 
enforcement community looks at our efforts here, looks at this 
appropriation bill, looks at title I, the Justice funding, they do not 
see any funding next year for the COPS program.
  Recognizing that we were not doing that in subcommittee, I thought 
about that. How do we posture this so that we take into consideration 
the interests of the majority now, we take into consideration the fact 
that earlier in the year they passed a crime bill which repealed in 
effect the COPS program and substituted a block grant program but also 
which takes into consideration that block grant program is not law; the 
COPS program is. How do we handle that?
  So I came up with an amendment in the alternative, a funding in the 
alternative. I offered that in full committee. The amendment simply 
said that we will fund the block program as it is contained in the 
subcommittee's mark, if the block program becomes law. Because if it 
becomes law, it in effect replaces the COPS program. But if the block 
program does not become law, then we will take that same amount of 
money and fund the COPS program and $233 million out of the fund 
prevention programs so that police officers and the law enforcement 
community and the American people would not have to be in this state of 
insecurity about Federal funding for community policing.
  That was a reasonable amendment. I almost thought it was bipartisan. 
I thought it might be accepted, but it was not. It was opposed on a 
partisan 

[[Page H 7636]]
basis and defeated in the full committee.
  I went to the Committee on Rules, made the same appeal. Let us fund 
block grants, if they become law,
 but let us not not fund the COPS Program in the event that the block 
program does not become law. Let us tell the police community out 
there, the American people, let us tell them that we are going to keep 
this program going in some form.

  We were denied at the Committee on Rules. Therefore, we are left with 
the only alternative and that is to strike the funding for the block 
grant program in this bill and offer an amendment in substitute of that 
to fund the COPS Program and to fund $233 million in prevention 
programs.
  That is where we are tonight. I hope that we pass this amendment, 
because if we do not go the other way, funding in the alternative, then 
surely we should let the communities across this country know that this 
very effective COPS Program is going to be funded into the outyears, 
that our promise to police agencies, law enforcement across the 
country, our promise that we are going to fund this COPS Program for 3 
years, that that promise is kept.
  Let me take a moment to speak to the success of the COPS Program, 
which obviously is the substance, it is the reason it merits continuing 
funding.
  The COPS Program was first funded last year in the Commerce, Justice 
Committee, was funded at $1.3 billion. This funding passes through a 
variety of grant programs, and jurisdictions of all sizes participated 
in it.
  There is the COPS Ahead Program that helps fund officers in larger 
jurisdictions. There is the COPS Fast Program, that directs funds 
towards smaller jurisdictions, and there is even a program Troops to 
Cops that provides funds to jurisdictions which hire former members of 
our armed services, which ought to be very attractive, particularly 
when we are downsizing the military.
  Thus far, Mr. Chairman, we have 20,473 more officers funded under 
this program that have been authorized by COPS that are out there on 
the beat. And Mr. Chairman, soon, I believe tomorrow, the Department of 
Justice will be announcing 3,434 more cops on the beat.
  I want to assure my colleagues that we are right on schedule with 
this program. We will see 100,000 more police officers on the beat by 
the year 2000, if we just fund the program. But the numbers do not tell 
the whole story.
  COPS is a popular program. It is popular with chiefs and sheriffs and 
mayors, as well as rank-and-file officers. COPS grant applications are 
short; they are simple. They are easy to fill out, one page in many 
instances. It is virtually an unparalleled administrative success 
program in the Federal Government.
  Let us talk about the impact of the COPS Program on crime. During the 
first half of 1995, homicide rates in America's largest cities, 
including New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, have dropped. 
That is certainly welcome news. Is it all because of the COPS Program? 
I do not know. But it is certainly making its contribution. And if it 
were rising, those who are critics of the COPS Program would probably 
say, Look, it is failing the crime rate is going up. But the crime rate 
is not going up. It is going down. The COPS Program is contributing to 
that. That is a wonderful success, and it is welcome news.
  In combination with community-based initiatives, this is a terrific 
program having a terrific impact.
  A recent article in the Washington Times detailed the successes of 
community policing efforts in Fort Worth, TX. The article states that 
since community policing began in Fort Worth, burglaries have gone
 down by 51 percent, and they started their community policing 4 years 
ago, grand thefts by 38-percent down, auto thefts by 60-percent down, 
robberies by 31 percent and aggravated assaults by 56 percent. Mr. 
Chairman, community policing works.

  If you vote against this amendment here tonight, there is no 
guarantee that the COPS program will continue. There is no guarantee 
that one new officer will make it to the streets of this Nation. If you 
vote for my amendment, you will ensure that the COPS program continues, 
that this proven work goes on.
  Finally, I would like to say a few words about prevention programs, 
Mr. Chairman. As H.R. 2706 stands, our bill zeros out funds for a 
number of important prevention programs such as drug courts and 
assistance for delinquent and at-risk youth.
  While some of these programs may be eligible for funding under the $2 
million local law enforcement block grant, my amendment reserves $233 
million specifically for these prevention programs, for these 
intervention programs. And they are working across the nation. 
Intervention and community policing, it is a nice combination, Mr. 
Chairman.
  By specifically reserving a pool of funds for these programs, I am 
preventing these programs from having to compete with COPS or other 
programs for funding.
  Let me remind my colleagues that there is a large teenage population 
coming up into crime-prone age, late in this century and early in the 
next century. Our best defense is to focus right on them, and 
prevention programs do that, focusing on drug awareness, education 
programs, and at-risk youth.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. Chairman, who knows what we will get for $2 billion on the local 
law enforcement block grant programs. We will get some good, but in the 
meantime we will undermine a proven program, one out there that America 
is depending upon and one out there that is playing its part in 
reducing crime across this Nation. Let us support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, let us be straight about this. The bill includes 
almost $2 billion for local law enforcement block grant applications. 
It replaces the President's COPS program. The President's COPS program 
is a top-down Washington based program. It requires local communities 
the first year to put up 25 percent of the cost, the second year 50 
percent of the cost, the third year 75 percent of the cost, and the 
fourth year 100 percent.
  Local communities say, if I had 25 percent to match, I would hire a 
cop today on my own. I would not need the Federal match. Our program, 
Mr. Chairman, only requires the local communities to put up 10 percent, 
and they can use the money not just for cops but for cop cars and cop 
radios and cop supplies and other needs of the local law enforcement 
community. Whatever they say they need. That is the beauty of this 
program.
  The Mollohan amendment puts its money on the Washington-based crime 
fighting strategy of the President. We put our trust in local 
communities' abilities to decide on their own where and how they want 
to spend the money to fight crime. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, 
and my colleagues, that midnight basketball is back if the Mollohan 
amendment passes along with other Washington prescribed crime 
prevention programs.
  I received a letter yesterday, Mr. Chairman, from the National League 
of Cities. It is signed by the current Democratic president, Carolyn 
Long Banks, and the incoming Republican president, Gregory Lashutka. It 
is a bipartisan response to the local law enforcement block grant 
program. Here is what it says. ``We are writing on behalf of 135,000 
municipal elected leaders from cities and towns across the Nation to 
express our strong support for provisions in the fiscal year 1996 
Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill requesting $2 billion to 
fund the House passed LNC supported local law enforcement block 
grant.'' They say, We urge all Members to vote in support of your 
efforts to fund a strengthened Federal local anticrime partnership.'' 
They go on to say, ``The types of crimes and violence and the 
appropriate responses to them vary from city to city. We know that no 
one-size-fits-all approach directed by Washington could work nearly as 
effectively and efficiently as providing local discretion and 
responsibility to local elected officials.''
  That is the quote, Mr. Chairman, from the president of the National 
League of Cities, Carolyn Long Banks, 

[[Page H 7637]]
who happens to be a member of Mr. Mollohan's party, but it is also 
signed by the Republican incoming president, and so this is bipartisan 
support for the local law enforcement assistance grants.
  I would put my money and we are putting our money in this bill on 
local communities any time, day or night, over providing the President 
his prescription from Washington for how local communities should act 
to fight crime in their community. We put our faith in local 
communities, in local elected officials, in local law enforcement 
people. The Mollohan amendment puts its faith in the White House.
  I strongly urge our Members to vote ``no'' on the Mollohan amendment 
and I hope that the Members will stay with us on the bill, because we 
provide almost $2 billion for local law enforcement, not Washington-
local law enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment to preserve the funding for community policing grants and 
prevention programs as prescribed by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994.
  Last year the Congress passed a crime control bill that adopted a 
balanced approach of prevention to stop crime before it starts; prisons 
to punish criminals; and police to enforce the laws on our streets. 
This approach is working, and particularly with regard to police.
  For example, the Justice Department has been extremely successful in 
awarding thousands of grants to small towns, medium-size towns, and to 
our Nation's cities. Nearly 17,000 new police officers are or will be 
hired--over 150 in my home State of Connecticut alone. These new police 
officers are welcome relief in my hometown of Hartford, where new 
officers on the street will fight the gangs and drugs that have become 
so commonplace there.
  Funding in this appropriations bill assumes enactment into law of 
H.R. 728, and funds $2 billion for the Law Enforcement Grant program. 
But it does not continue the successful COPS program; in fact, it does 
not guarantee that one additional police officer will be placed on the 
street. We can try criminals, we can put them in prison, but without 
additional police we do not have the resources to arrest them and start 
the judicial process.
  In addition, the bill provides no funding for any of the prevention 
programs like drug courts, that were enacted into law as part of last 
year's crime bill. Without funding for prevention programs we will not 
have the chance to keep our young people off the streets, and away from 
the temptations of crime.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Mollohan amendment to restore 
funding for police and prevention programs. Let's continue the 
intelligent approach enacted to reduce crime across the Nation. Support 
a balanced approach to fighting crime in our counties, and support the 
Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the very able 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I come tonight to rise in strong support of the 
provisions in this bill that have law enforcement block grants.
  Funding this initiative represents a vital step in my judgment in 
this Congress to keep one of the pledges in the Contract With America 
that we made as we came to office on this side of the aisle this past 
November, and a pledge that we took a large step in keeping when we 
passed a bill earlier this year, in January, H.R. 728, where we 
rejected the Washington-knows-best concept that is embodied in the 
Mollohan amendment.
  The reason I like what is in the underlying bill and do not like 
Mollohan is the same reason we debated out here back in January. We 
talked about the fact that at that time we had a situation where a bill 
that had been passed in the last Congress devoted a specific amount of 
money to Cops on the Streets Program, a very large sum, and another 
very large sum to a bunch of prevention programs that many of us 
thought was more social welfare. In order to be able to get any of this 
money, you had to comply with the specific restrictions in that 
legislation which was passed last year in the last Congress.
  What we found in the Cops on the Streets Program as it has been 
unearthed and developed out there is that some communities, 
particularly those that were going to hire cops, anyway, think those 
programs are terrific in a sense because the money that is given to 
them by the Federal Government subsidizes a program of hiring that they 
were already planning on doing anyhow. In a few cases you are getting a 
few new cops on the streets in places you would not otherwise have, but 
there are hundreds, and I would say thousands of local communities 
around this country who have rejected the idea of these new cops under 
this program already. Many of them have contacted many of the Members 
of this Congress and this House in particular to express those 
rejections and the reasons why. The reasons were clear to us then as 
they are clear to us now. That is, because especially in smaller 
communities, there is simply not the ability to fund the additional 
amount for the police officer.
  As the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] explained a minute ago, 
what happens in this COPS Program right now as it exists is that the 
police officers can be hired provided you put up a certain amount of 
funding at the beginning, and the Federal Government puts up about 75 
percent, I guess, at the beginning. But that goes all the way down, in 
3 years, all the way down to zero. After that you have the total 
responsibility of paying the entire cost of a police officer if you are 
going to keep them after that time, and most of that cost at the end of 
the first year.
  The fact of the matter is that what the Federal Government pays, too, 
is not the full cost of the first time out, even the first year, 
because it does not take into full account the cost of equipping and 
training that new officer to go out on the street or perhaps the new 
police car he has got to have to have him.
  What we also had with the prevention programs in the actual grants, 
not block grants but the regular grants they have out there now, is a 
limited amount of choices. You had certain programs specifically fixed, 
many of them designed to prefer in a sense some of the larger cities 
like New York City that would like to get specific money for a 
particular program. None of that, the American public thought, was a 
very good
 idea.

  So what came out in the bill that passed this House, the crime bill 
earlier this year and what is embodied in this appropriations bill 
today was a complete change in that, a movement to a block grant 
program for the local communities to take all of this money that can be 
available, which is made available under this bill tonight, and instead 
of having somebody tell them that they have to hire a police officer in 
order to get the money or that they have to meet a certain program 
standard of a particular program we have dreamed up up here, the local 
communities, based upon the highest crime rates around the country, and 
based on their populations, will get the moneys in their communities 
for the county and city governments to decide how to spend that money 
to fight crime, with no other restriction except that it has to be used 
to fight crime and that it cannot be used to substitute for moneys that 
otherwise already would be there to hire the existing police or 
whatever.
  In other words, the block grant money concept that we have, that we 
are going to be voting on in a couple of minutes tonight that the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] wants to do away with with 
his amendment would allow the cities and the counties of this country 
to decide how to spend the Federal money that is available in a way 
that they individually believe best fights crime in their communities. 
If they want to hire a new police officer or two, they are perfectly 
capable of doing that, spending every penny of their money on it. If 
they want to bid a new police car instead or another piece of 
equipment, 

[[Page H 7638]]
they could use it for that instead. If they want to put the money into 
drug prevention programs or into midnight basketball, they could do 
that. That would be their choice at the local level rather than 
Washington telling them how to do it as exists in the present law and 
as exists in what the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] wants 
to return to with this money.
  We do not want, on our side of the aisle, to be dictating to the 
cities and the counties of this Nation how this money is to be spent. 
We want to let them decide, because we think local governments know 
best how to fight crime in their communities.
  This block grant approach is supported by a lot of groups around the 
country. These groups include the National League of Cities, the 
National Association of Chiefs of Police, the Law Enforcement Alliance 
of America, the Memphis Police Association, the Southern States Police 
Benevolent Association, the American Federation of Police, the Police 
Superior Officers Association and numerous lodges of the Fraternal 
Order of Police.
  It is also significant of note that the police chief of Washington, 
D.C. recently testified before Congress and voiced his strong support 
for the block grant approach giving him the flexibility of getting 
equipment and doing other things rather than having to have a cop or 
doing one of the prevention programs specifically dictated in the bill 
that passed last year or would exist under the approach of the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. Washington, D.C. lacks the 
resources and the ability to take advantage of the COPS program just 
like a lot of communities around this country lack that ability.
  What the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] wants to do does 
not make sense. He is turning back the clock to the old Democrat 
version of how we ought to do it, with Washington knows best.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against the Mollohan amendment, 
embrace the local community block grant program in the underlying bill. 
Let the cities and the counties of this Nation decide who knows best 
what is good for them because what is good in Eugene, Oregon for 
fighting crime is not necessarily good in Jacksonville, Florida.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to reply to the distinguished gentleman from Florida for 
just 1 minute. He got into at the end of his remarks a little bit of 
hyperbole about the old way of doing business and all that.
  Actually the COPS program is very modern, it is very new, it is good 
thinking. It is an efficient operation, creating efficient 
relationships between the Federal Government and localities and States 
across this Nation. It does it in a very direct way, focusing on a very 
real problem and getting a directly focused program, cops out there on 
the beat.
  The gentleman from Florida mentioned organizations who were 
supporting the community block grant program. Perhaps they are 
supporting it in the abstract, as a possibility. There are a number of 
fraternal organizations who support the COPS program and support it 
strongly. Just to mention a few and not take up very much time, the 
Fraternal Order of Police support COPS, I say to the distinguished 
gentleman. The National Association of Police Organizations, the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the International Union 
of Police Associations, the Police Executive Research Forum, the 
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National 
Troopers Coalition. The list goes on. I have only gone down through 
about half of it. There is considerable support out there for this very 
successful program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment to restore funding for the COPS community policing and 
prevention programs.
  The amendment provides $1.8 billion in community policing grants so 
that States and local governments can hire more police officers. It 
also restores $233 million for much-needed crime prevention programs. 
The Mollohan amendment would make sure that community policing and 
prevention programs are funded, instead of leaving these vital 
initiatives to chance under the local law enforcement block grants. 
Despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, these 
block grants do not guarantee that even one new police officer would be 
on the beat or that children and families would benefit from needed 
crime prevention initiatives.
  Streets are becoming safer because we are putting more police 
officers on the beat and are improving programs that give young people 
a positive alternative to the streets.
  In 1990, my hometown of New Haven, CT, had the unfortunate 
distinction of having the highest crime rate of any city in 
Connecticut. Then police and community leaders came together and 
implemented a community policing program. Three years later, New Haven 
has a much prouder distinction--crime was reduced by 7 percent in the 
first year of the program and by 10 percent in the second year. In 
fact, New Haven's community policing program has become a model for the 
Nation.
  We need to keep the pledge made in the 1994 crime bill to put 100,000 
new police officers on the streets by the year 2000. In my district, 32 
new police officers are already on the job in 10 municipalities. And 
the results are in. According to the F.B.I.'s Uniform Crime Reports for 
the first 3 months of 1995, aggravated assault is down by 40 percent, 
robbery is down by 21 percent, and murder is down by 5 percent.
  I urge my colleagues to support our police and communities by keeping 
our commitment to the COPS and prevention programs in the 1994 crime 
bills. These programs are making our streets and our people safer.
  Take a stand in support of our cities, our police, our families, and 
our youth: support the Mollohan amendment.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding and I 
appreciate being recognized to speak about this very important 
provision.
  Listening to the comments on the other side, I am reminded of an 
author, and I must admit I do not know whether it was Shakespeare or 
Tom Clancy that said, in response to somebody protesting about 
something else, ``Methinks y'all doth protest too much.'' Translated to 
those of us out in the real world, that means, ``What are y'all scared 
of?''
  Mr. Chairman, we have a program here that takes taxpayer dollars and 
goes to our communities, our county commissioners, your city 
councilmen, your police, your cops, your sheriffs and says: Would you 
rather have these moneys coming for your community going back to your 
community? Would you rather have them controlled by Washington, as 
benevolent as Washington may be, or would you rather have control of 
those moneys in your community to use for purposes that you know are 
best in your communities?
  Yes, the COPS program may be a good program, but why be wedded to a 
program that can be improved? This program can be improved.
  If the gentlewoman from Connecticut needs police officers in her 
community, needs a cop on the beat in the neighborhoods, this proposal 
in this bill says, Go for it. Go to it, if that is what you need.
  It gives ultimate flexibility to our law enforcement officers, our 
county commissioners, our city council people. that is it where the 
power should be, because that is where the power is coming from. We are 
returning it to the people. We are returning it to the people and to 
our officers, and what they need is what we ought to give them.
  Mr. Chairman, they do not need redtape. They do not need forms. They 
need the funds to do what they believe in their community needs to be 
done to protect our citizens. This bill does it; this amendment takes 
it away.
  I ask this amendment be defeated and the bill supported.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to the gentleman's closing remarks that 
this 

[[Page H 7639]]
amendment takes it away, this amendment indeed takes nothing away; this 
amendment preserves the COPS program. It keeps the funding going as the 
Government promised it would keep it going into the outyears.
  Actually, the bill language takes it away, changes the program in 
midstream and creates a lot of instability out there. This amendment 
restores that and keeps the COPS program going.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks).
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] for his leadership on this bill, and I feel more deeply 
about it, as somebody who authored the COPS program.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia asked the question a minute 
ago; he said, ``What are you afraid of?'' Let me tell you what we are 
afraid of. We are afraid of local and State politicians taking this 
money and wasting it, not putting it for cops on the beat, but for 
doing whatever they darn choose.
  We are afraid of them doing what they did in the 1970s, spending 
money on a tank or, like the Governor of Indiana, spending it on an 
airplane that he used to fly around saying he was protecting law 
enforcement. Or in other ways we are afraid of the LEA program, 
spending billions of dollars and wasting as they did in the 1970s.
  There is a simple choice here, my colleagues. Who do you want to get 
the money? The police, as in the Mollohan amendment, or the 
politicians, as in the Republican bill?
  We have this myth here, the Federal politicians will waste the money, 
but the State and local politicians will use it wisely. Well, I have 
seen more State and local politicians waste money. If my colleagues 
would just look at each of their local newspapers, there will be a 
story day by day. Ask this question: Why are all the major rank-and-
file police organizations supporting the Mollohan bill; FOP and the 
NAPO, the hard-working policemen and women who walk those beats and 
whose lives are in danger? Because they know that our amendment says: 
Put the money for cops on the beat, not for whatever some little local 
politician decides he or she wants. It is that simple.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues were to ask my constituents, hard-
working people in the outer boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, what they 
want more than anything else from their government, it is the cop 
walking the beat.
  Our bill provides them that. The Republican bill, the proposal, does 
not. It allows the local mayor, county commissioner, or whoever else, 
to spend the money on any kind of frivolous scheme they want.
  Vote for the police. Vote for safety. Vote for the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as a former assistant district 
attorney of Pennsylvania and a Town Watch organizer, I can tell you 
that the existing 1995 crime bill earmarks $10.2 billion for crime 
prevention programs and police programs.
  Whether it is police officers or a drug corps, a Town Watch, police 
vehicles or police training, this existing bill does everything we 
need, including having more police officers, and the 1994 existing 
grants for police officers are fully protected.
  In my view, the Federal Government, which is $4 trillion in debt, 
does not handle its funds well, but local government knows what it 
wants. Leave the discretion, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] says, to local law enforcement initiatives by our local 
communities, and we will take care of the law enforcement with the 
police officers and the public safety initiatives.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, what is the majority party's response at 
this point to the COPS program? It is a cop-out. A block grant. A block 
grant that assures no more cops on the beat; not a single additional 
cop guaranteed.
  The issue is not about flexibility. This bill provides a lot of 
flexibility. I say this to the gentleman from Florida, it is about 
priorities. There is a national priority in terms of more police in 
local communities. And the gentleman mentions about small and large. I 
do not understand why small communities in his district, and in others 
represented here, have not taken advantage of this program.
  The local communities in the 12th District, small and large, have. 
Center Line has an application. It has a small population; less than 
10,000. We have a letter, on the other hand, from Warren from the city 
police chief, 145,000. He says, ``Save this program. It has added six 
police in the community and now we hope to obtain more.''
  The same is true of Berkley and Huntington Woods, small communities 
in the 12th District. And the bill, the COPS bill, allows communities 
to combine together, under an amendment that I proposed, to have 
regional task forces to get at the needs within those communities.
  Mr. Chairman, what does the majority proposal at this point suggest? 
Throw it to the winds. There is no accountability. I am proud to stand 
here and say there is a national priority and that is more police in 
our communities; flexibility for communities to use it as they want.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not saying Washington knows best, but what I am 
saying is, listen to the local communities who have applied and who 
support this program. The formula of the majority party is going to 
hurt suburban communities like I represent. They have an ingredient in 
there that is going to hurt suburban communities like I represent.
  The COPS program is working; their program is a cop-out. I am glad 
for the Mollohan amendment. Let us go across partisan lines for once 
and support it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] 
has just called every sheriff, every police official, every mayor in 
this country, a little local politician, when he said that the Members 
of this body, that the Members of the U.S. Congress, know more about 
fighting crime than local sheriffs, and that is a lie.
  Mr. Chairman, I have before me a letter from Donny Gasparini, a 
Democrat, who is the sheriff of Winnebago County, one of only 32 
counties in the entire United States to be accredited by the Commission 
of Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. He is saying this: We 
need flexibility in this program. Sure it is good to have money for 
cops on the beat, but each new officer accounts for an average of 15 
arrests per month.
  He sent a letter to President Clinton saying, Give the sheriffs of 
this country flexibility. Do not box us in, because we need money not 
only to hire cops if we need them, but for drug courts, day reporting 
centers, community-based drug rehab programs, work release options.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a professional law enforcement officer. He is 
the head of the Illinois Sheriffs Association. He knows more than the 
U.S. Congress. He is the one saying give the local police enforcement 
agencies the flexibility to spend the money to develop the tools that 
they know best in order to fight crime. Take power away from Congress 
and give it back to the local communities. That is why the block grants 
is the best program.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letter:

                                            Office of the Sheriff,


                                             Winnebago County,

                                      Rockford, IL, June 15, 1995.
     Hon. Donald Manzullo,
     U.S. Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Don: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I am sending to 
     President Clinton regarding the difficulties with 
     appropriations for the Crime Bill.
       Can you suggest any additional steps we in corrections 
     should be taking to assist with the decision-making process?
       This matter is of grave concern to our community. We have 
     invested much time and money in trying to jump through the 
     federal hoops for funding assistance, only to have the rules 
     change in mid-jump.
       Can you help?
           Sincerely,
                                              Donald J. Gasparini,
     Sheriff.
                                                                    ____


[[Page H 7640]]

                                            Office of the Sheriff,


                                             Winnebago County,

                                      Rockford, IL, June 15, 1995.
     Hon. William Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: This letter is to call your 
     attention to certain aspects of the ``Crime Bill'' that I'm 
     sure you recognize need to be addressed.
       The situation in county corrections is at crisis 
     proportion. Everyday we face overwhelming stress on our 
     system. We have desperately needed alternatives to 
     incarceration, and some very good programs have been 
     developed (i.e. drug courts, day-reporting centers, 
     community-based drug rehab programs, work-relase options), 
     but the problems are escalating with such speed that we can't 
     afford to fund the alternatives.
       We had great hopes of receiving federal assistance in the 
     form of grants, but many of the alternatives-to-incarceration 
     grant programs we were eligible to apply for, have had their 
     funds pulled to support the Community Policing Grant program. 
     We have submitted a Drug Court Grant application, which now 
     awaits some sort of decision on appropriations, following the 
     recision bill veto.
       I fully support the concept of more law enforcement on the 
     streets as a deterrent to crime, but each new officer 
     accounts for an average of 15 arrests per month, adding to 
     the dangerously high crowding in our jails, and the premature 
     release of dangerous criminals back onto the streets to be 
     arrested again. The criminal justice system is like a line of 
     dominoes; adjustment of one affects the rest. There must be a 
     more comprehensive approach.
       Daily in Winnebago County, we face the problem of a jail 
     packed like a tin of sardines, averaging 387 inmates in space 
     built for 226. Many days, especially following a weekend of 
     arrests, we number well over 450 in that same space.
       Believing that the public would support the badly needed 
     expansion of our facility, we presented a referendum to the 
     community on the November 1993 ballot. This referendum 
     covered all four affected areas within the criminal justice 
     system--state's attorneys and public defenders, courts, 
     probation, and incarceration--allowing us to begin clearing 
     up the large number of inmates awaiting trial and to put 
     teeth into sentencing by providing the necessary jail space. 
     The referendum was defeated three-to-one, by a public who 
     said they will not approve any additional property tax.
       We are accountable to the communities we serve, and in our 
     efforts to maintain an efficient and precisely run Agency, we 
     have recently successfully completed the onerous and rigorous 
     process of Accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation 
     for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). We are proudly one of 
     only 32 accredited Sheriff's Departments in the nation. What 
     this really means is that in spite of the budget 
     restrictions, increasing crime, and reduced pesonnel levels, 
     we have maintained above average solve rates, achieved the 
     highest honors our industry can bestow, and reinforced public 
     confidence in the job we do best.
       The reason for this lengthy explanation of our situation is 
     to add our voice to the many communities across Illinois and 
     the nation who are in the same frustrating position. Our hope 
     is that this information will strengthen your argument for 
     more emphasis on funding for local rehabilitation and 
     meaningful sanctions that will return credibility to law 
     enforcement, whether it is in the form of federal grants, or 
     block grants to states, that would allow for more local 
     considerations.
       Personally I would like to see Crime Bill funding returned 
     intact for this fiscal year, and gradually phase in the 
     minimally restrictive block grants that would complete the 
     intent of the Crime Bill over a three-to-five year period.
       Please let me know if there are any steps we can be taking 
     at the local level that would expedite this possibility.
           Sincerely yours,
                                              Donald J. Gasparini,
                                                          Sheriff.

  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, the base bill is a reduction in local law 
enforcement. The Mollohan amendment restores that reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] had it right. If 
we want to help your city councilmen, and we want to help your county 
commissioners, and we want to help your mayors, go with the block 
grant. If we want this money to go into local law enforcement, matched 
by local dollars to get the biggest bang for the buck, if Members are 
sick and tired of the threats to public safety, the depressant on 
people's psychology, the hindrance it poses to economic recovery in any 
major urban area, and they want to get more cops on the street, the 
Cops on the Beat Program is the best way to do it.

                              {time}  1945

  Every councilman has had a different idea of what is good for public 
safety. This is not money that goes to local law enforcement, it goes 
to local government. The Cops on the Beat Program is a local law 
enforcement program. It expands Cops on the Beat. This has a thousand 
different diversions without any local match with a reduced local 
effort.
  This works against the President's goal, the administration's goal, 
of more Cops on the Beat. It works against the interests of Los 
Angeles. It works against the interests, I suggest, of almost every 
major urban area in the country,
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  I rise in strong support of the Mollohan amendment to restore $1.8 
billion for the highly effective COPS program. At a time when violent 
crime and its consequences for our quality of life is of great concern 
to us all, it defies logic that we would decimate our most effective 
means of addressing this scourge.
  The COPS Program works. It has already resulted in the assignment of 
20,000 additional police officers in neighborhoods around the country 
in the first 12 months of the program.
  By way of contrast, the block grant funding provided in the bill can 
be used for any purpose that would enhance public safety. I can 
envision some mighty creative uses to which such unrestricted funding 
can be put--uses that do not guarantee a single additional officer on 
our streets.
  I am appalled by the rising rate of violent crime. Our parks have 
become off-limits, increasing numbers of the elderly are afraid to 
venture out of their homes, women find their freedom restricted, and 
children--and their parents--can no longer enjoy peace of mind about 
the safety of our schools.
  I am convinced that the single most effective step we have taken to 
confront this problem is to put more cops on the beat in our 
communities through the COPS Program
  What is more, I can personally vouch for the flexibility and 
efficiency of that program. I have met with Director Brann and his 
staff, and have the greatest admiration for the lengths to which they 
have gone to accommodate local needs and circumstances, but at all 
times making certain that the acid test is met: will the funds sought 
by the locality result in putting more cops on the beat?
  With the funding appropriated thus far, we have made a splendid start 
on our commitment to put 100,000 additional cops to work in our 
neighborhoods and streets. Let's not renege on that commitment.
  The first obligation of government is to ensure the safety and 
security of its citizens. By returning tax dollars to our communities 
not in the form of an ill-defined block grant but for the explicit 
purpose of hiring an additional 100,000 police officers, we are making 
a major stride toward ending the scourge of crime in America.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me repeat something that I said at the beginning of 
this debate. The bill language that we have now provides nearly $2 
billion for a local law enforcement block grant program to replace the 
President's COPS Program. The COPS Program is Washington based--
Washington telling the local community what they can or cannot do with 
their money.
  The COPS Program requires local communities in the first year to 
provide 25 percent of the cost, 50 percent the second year, 75 percent 
the third year, and 100 percent in the fourth year. Local communities 
simply cannot afford that.
  The funds under the COPS Program can only be used to employ police 
men and women. It cannot be used for police cars or radios or equipment 
or perhaps another program that the local community thinks is more 
important than adding another policeman or policewoman.
  We say we are giving local communities, whether it be the police 
force or the county commissioners or the city council, the mayor or the 
county executive, we are giving them a local option. You might even 
call this a coption program; they can use the money for cops, if they 
want, and other options, their options, not ours.
  If you vote for the Mollohan amendment, you are putting a Washington 
straitjacket on local communities, cops only, and you have got to pay 
for it all after 3 years.
  If you vote for the program that is in the bill, your share is only 
10 percent, local community, and we are going to let you decide how you 
want to use it. 

[[Page H 7641]]
We are going to keep track of it; no longer will you be able to use 
this money in a wasteful or inefficient manner, and yet you have the 
local option to decide what program or programs work best for you.
  I urge our Members to continue to oppose the Mollohan amendment. Give 
the local communities a break. Give them the option. Do not let 
Washington again impose its will on local communities.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the COPS program and the Mollohan amendment.
  Earlier today I showed the faces of county policing in Sacramento 
County, CA. We showed the people and the sheriffs' deputies in North 
Highlands, one of the unincorporated areas in our community, who work 
together, filing 4,000 crime reports that probably otherwise would not 
have been filed. Those crime reports allow those sheriffs' deputies to 
concentrate their fire, their effort, their activity in areas where it 
can do the most good.
  It is the epitome of what we are talking about when we say let us put 
the cops out there on the street, on the beat, in the communities, in 
the storefronts, where they can do the most good.
  The sheriff of Sacramento County understood this. He came, applied 
and received, and community policing occurred. We are talking about a 
1-page application. This is not the traditional Federal bureaucracy run 
amok. This is a streamlined process that puts an emphasis on giving the 
communities the opportunity to put very small sums into the investment 
of an application with big returns in the fight against crime.
  Please, support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, the 
subcommittee chairman, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentleman, I think we ought to be clear 
what is going on here because I think, frankly, what we are witnessing 
is a very cynical effort on the part of the administration and their 
allies in the Congress to save political face.
  What I would like to do is sort of reconstruct the sequence of 
events, if you will. Earlier this year, this session of Congress, 
during the first 100 days, we passed the local government law 
enforcement block grant with strong bipartisan support in the House of 
Representatives. Shortly thereafter, the President threatened a veto of 
the bill. Then we flash forward a few more months. Then what do we 
have? Lo and behold, the President, through his reelection campaign, is 
making a $2.7 million TV advertising buy to portray the President as a 
born-again crime fighter.
  Tonight we have the Mollohan amendment out on the floor. The 
gentleman from West Virginia is simply saying, ``Look, we ought to go 
forward with the COPS program because our alternative, what I feel is a 
vastly superior alternative, the local government, the law enforcement 
block grants, has not yet become law. Let us call a spade a spade, 
there are real problems with the Cops on the Beat program. Part of it 
is the cost. We debated that the other day in the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  At $60,000 to $80,000 to hire a new police officer, the funding the 
gentleman proposes would come up far short of the 100,000 new Cops on 
the Beat we heard about. Many of us have heard from local government 
jurisdictions in our congressional districts complaining about the 
local match requirements, and those local match requirements have 
prevented those financially strapped local governments from 
participating in the Cops on the Beat program.
  Lastly, with our approach, what we have tried to do is frankly 
acknowledge that crime is first and foremost a local concern. We are 
trying to give local jurisdictions the flexibility to combat crime in 
local communities.
  I have heard from jurisdictions in my congressional district that 
have said, ``We do not want more money to hire additional police 
officers. What we prefer instead is the flexibility you can give us 
under the local government law enforcement block grant to expand our 
DARE program in local schools, to build on community-based crime 
prevention programs and the like.''
  So I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment. 
Stay with the bill. It is a vastly superior approach that recognizes 
that crime is, in fact, first and foremost a local concern. Our 
approach is to try to help those local communities to address those 
local crime problems.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman there is nothing cynical in our 
efforts at all. We have an ongoing, very successful program supported 
by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, major city chiefs, and there is 
nothing cynical at all about it.
  As for the jurisdiction of Washington, DC, and its financial 
problems, it has a waiver, which there is a provision for.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Philadelphia, PA [Mr. Foglietta], a very distinguished member of the 
committee.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Mollohan 
amendment and to stand with police officers in my home city of 
Philadelphia who are fighting the problem which is most compelling for 
all of our constituents: crime. Crime, which is robbing us all of our 
very freedom to walk our neighborhood streets.
  There are some cases where block grants may work. There are some 
instances where it could be giving more flexibility to our state and 
local governments. But if it ain't broken, let us not fix it, and the 
COPS Program is far from broken.
  Community policing is working. In Philadelphia, crime is down 
considerably. In many of our big cities, crime is down by 4 percent 
and, astoundingly, New York has experienced a 30-percent drop in its 
murder rate. People feel safer when they see a cop walking their beat, 
or riding their beat in a cruiser or even on a bicycle.
  The cops like this program. A survey taken last month showed that 
only 5 percent of police executives want a block grant. COPS is working 
for the cops. If other departments are looking for a way to reinvent 
themselves in terms of working with local governments, they should use 
COPS--with their one or two page applications and quick turnaround 
time--as their model.
  On a personal note, the Attorney General was receptive to me when I 
pleaded for consideration for the desperately poor city of Chester in 
my district. The Justice Department was sensitive, expeditious and 
responsible. I thank you, Janet Reno.
  The numbers speak for themselves. The COPS program has a slight 1.5-
percent administrative cost. That means that more cops will go out on 
the street. A block grant program would add bureaucratic fat.
  So what is going on here? I think it's clear. The President was 
absolutely right when he sounded the call to put 100,000 new cops on 
the street. And the lean and mean bureaucracy he set up to do the job 
is doing the job. For no other reason than brazen politics, Republicans 
want to steal this success away from our President.
  That is dead wrong. We should not be playing politics on crime. And 
the American people know that. We're 20,000 towards our goal. Let us 
not stop until every one of those 100,000 police officers are on the 
streets in every community of America. Vote for the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in opposition to 
this amendment and follow up on some comments that have been made 
earlier concerning statements by the police chief here in Washington, 
DC. These statements were made at a hearing that was held just a month 
ago, on June 22, 1995, a hearing on combatting crime in the District of 
Columbia. At that hearing, Mr. Davis asked the police chief this: ``Let 
me ask you this, would you prefer to put that money 

[[Page H 7642]]
into technology as opposed to new officers at this point?'' Chief 
Thomas responded. He said, ``Yes, I would. I think that is a better use 
of our dollars to improve the infrastructure of the department, buy the 
equipment, have money there for overtime. I think that by adding 
officers, we do not really get at the problem, because after we add the 
officers, we still have all of these antiquated processes within the 
department where we have manual report-taking, et cetera.''
  I think we should pay some attention to what the police chief right 
here in Washington, DC, says.
  I think we should also pay some attention to the fact that more than 
200 COPS grants were rejected by
 local communities around this country.

  What we have done with this program is create a straitjacket. Now, it 
may be that in many communities, perhaps a majority of communities, 
that is where they want the money to go, into officers on the street. 
We give them the flexibility to do it. But that is not the answer in 
every community.
  We need not impose that as an answer. We need to give flexibility. We 
need to pay attention to law enforcement officers around this country 
and local governments. We do not have all the wisdom.
  We need to understand the reality of fighting crime differs from 
community to community. We need to pay attention to that. We need to 
reject this amendment and continue to give flexibility to local 
communities through this block grant program. I believe that is a 
program which will allow all of the communities to meet the needs of 
the communities in a way that is most appropriate based on the local 
circumstances.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida would not yield, 
and the other gentleman from Florida mentioned the same thing, how 
Washington, DC, wants your block grant program because you have 
admitted those with the high crime rates will get the money. Those with 
lower crime rates will not get it.
  What happens at the end of the year when the crime rates go down? 
Underneath your formula, next year Washington, DC, will not get as much 
money, so if you are effective in fighting crime, the next year you 
will receive less money.
  Crime cannot be on a 12-month cycle where one year you have the 
money, the next year you do not.
  Get the facts straight. Your program is up and down. It is only 
funded for one year.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to a lot of this 
debate tonight. I think a few things need to be made clear.
  First of all, the underlying bill we have here today going to a block 
grant program will not in any way affect those communities that already 
have commitments with Cops in the Streets. They have their money 
cordoned off under the existing system, so any of the grants already 
given will not be affected by continuing to support the block grant 
program as you would be doing tonight by voting against the Mollohan 
amendment, which I urge you to do.
  Second, I heard a lot of folks suggest somehow or another we are not 
going to be able to get trust into the local communities to do what is 
right. I think that is just pure, unadulterated nonsense. The fact of 
the matter is I think anybody thinking about this understands that the 
local communities are going to make the best decision, not us, about 
what is best for their community.
  The idea that if they need a police officer, they will not provide 
it, I just believe, as I said, is nonsense. Under the scheme we worked 
out, there will be a board that will have to advise the city commission 
and the county commission, whichever it is, and on that board will be 
an appropriate representative of the police and the community or the 
sheriff, as the case may be, also the local judiciary will be 
represented, the local school system will be represented, the local 
social work organizations that get involved with criminal justice will 
be represented, and so on.
                              {time}  2000

  So that in essence those decisions will be made not just simply by 
politicians, quote unquote. They will be made by local community 
representatives advising the local government leaders on what is best 
for their community, and, if a community wants to spend all of its 
money on police, and many will want to do that, there is going to be 
more money available under the proposal of the block grant program than 
there is under the existing cops on the street program or the 
prevention program of Mr. Mollohan's program to be spent. There could 
conceivably be more police officers hired in this country under these 
programs. We want to do it the block grant route that exists under the 
existing program.
  But in the process of looking at how this is going to work, Mr. 
Chairman, we ought to also understand that there are a lot of folks 
like the D.C. police chief who do understand that where the money 
should be spent is where the crime is, and there is no greater, higher 
rate of crime anywhere in the country, unfortunately, than the District 
of Columbia, and I heard the last speaker suggest that, gee whiz, if we 
use this formula, there may be some communities that do not get as much 
money as other communities because they have a higher crime rate. Well, 
I assure my colleagues, and I assure the gentleman, that under the 
formula that virtually every community, I would say every community, is 
not too small, gets a sum of money, a sizable sum of money, under this 
block grant concept all over the country, but it is true that the 
higher crime rate communities will get more in any given year, and they 
ought to get more in any given year because that is where the crime 
problem is, and that is what indeed is envisioned by this.
  I would suggest that this is the fairest and the most responsible way 
to deal with fighting crime in this country and to hiring police 
officers, and if a community, as many do, has no desire whatsoever to 
hire a new police officer, and they need some new equipment of some 
sort, they can spend it on that, or they can spend it on drug courts, 
or they can spend it on drug treatment programs, or they can spend it 
on some new innovative program that they have created that in their 
local community can be tailored just to fight the crime problem in that 
community, and there are a lot of very original ideas out there that 
have never come under any of these congressionally created kinds of 
prevention programs that we have been seeing in the Democrat-controlled 
Congresses of the past and President Clinton's crime bill that passed. 
Let us let the local community decide.
  I can guarantee my colleagues what is happening that is good for 
fighting crime in Texas is not necessarily going to be good in Rhode 
Island, or in Oregon, or wherever. The local community-based concept 
will work. We are not detracting a minute from this. We are not taking 
away from anything. We are just suggesting on the Republican side of 
the aisle that local government knows best. We believe in reducing the 
size and scope of the Federal Government as a matter of principle. We 
believe in divesting these decisionmaking processes out to the State 
and local communities, and that is what we are doing in this bill, and 
I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the Mollohan amendment for those 
reasons.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, Mr. Mollohan, I 
applaud your efforts, and, if these young men and women could be here 
tonight, new law enforcement officers sworn in last Friday night in 
Austin, TX, they would want to applaud your efforts also because 
Austin, TX, has 25 new police officers on the beat tonight as a result 
of this cops program, and tomorrow they'll have another $600,000 
available to put more officers on the beat and to provide them with 
some of the equipment they need under the flexibility that our 
Republican colleagues ignore under the Cops More Program.
  Mr. Chairman, they tell us they are against redtape. They tell us 
they want to allow local decisionmaking. Let me tell my colleagues 
every one of these police officers is on the beat tonight with a grant 
approved in less time, in 

[[Page H 7643]]
less time, than the 45 days they are going to allow Republican 
Governors to comment on these applications under their program. I say 
to my colleagues, if you want to eliminate redtape, if you want to 
stand up for local law enforcement officials, you'll listen to them as 
the experts.
  I heard the almost frivolous comments of the gentleman from Illinois 
suggesting that we were against local sheriffs. Well, the National 
Sheriffs Association, along with every other major law enforcement 
association, was there today standing along with the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak] supporting the Mollohan amendment. They are 
supporting it because they recognize that just as the Republicans want 
to cut Medicare, they are cutting the commitment to 100,000 police 
officers.
  Mr. Chairman, I am unyielding in support of my local law enforcement 
association and unyielding in opposing the kind of cutback in this 
commitment which was for 100,000 new police officers. Can my colleagues 
tell me things are different in Florida or in Illinois from Texas? I 
defy my colleagues to find a community in this country that cannot 
benefit from having more law enforcement officers out there to protect 
that community.
  That is what this amendment is all about. If my colleagues believe in 
standing with the men and women who are willing to risk their lives for 
our community, they will support the Mollohan amendment and reject this 
kind of bureaucracy that is being proposed.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few seconds. I am sorry that the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee did not yield to me. I say 
to the gentleman, I simply wanted to make a point, Bill, that you made 
a comment that under the block grant program it was conceivable that 
you would have more policemen on the beat. That's really the problem 
with the block grant program. It is also conceivable that you will not 
have as many policemen on the beat. And the other point is that we 
already have this tremendous cops program out there, as Mr. Doggett 
just pointed out, that is working, and that communities have had 
commitments from the Federal Government that they're going to be funded 
for 3 years, and under the block grant program that commitment of the 
Federal Government is going to be undermined.
  The Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a former mayor who started a community 
policing program, I strongly support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment to restore funding for the COPS Program. The COPS Program is 
responsible for 95 new cops and the redeployment of 44 other cops in my 
congressional district along.
  But as I understand it, this bill guts the COPS Program and instead 
appropriates $2 billion for a law enforcement program that does not 
even exist.
  That's right, it does not even exist. The fact is that, H.R. 728, the 
Local Governments Law Enforcement Block Grant Act, which this bill 
provides $2 billion for, has not even been considered in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee nor does the committee even have plans to hold 
hearings on H.R. 728.
  But let me tell you what this fictional law enforcement program would 
do. It would allow communities to use their funding for nonlaw 
enforcement purposes, including hiring secretaries and purchasing new 
uniforms or new cruisers. Secretaries, uniforms, and cruisers that will 
not lower the crime rate in your district or mine.
  The Mollohan amendment restores funding to put more cops on the 
streets of every congressional district, Democratic and Republican, and 
to make those districts safer. The COPS Program works. How do I know? I 
know because their are 139 more cops on the streets of my district and 
I know because in communities nationwide, these cops are walking their 
beat protecting our homes, protecting our schools, and protecting our 
children.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to our 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt].
  The CHAIRMAN. The distinguished minority leader is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I urge Members to 
vote for this Mollohan amendment.
  What we passed in the crime bill just a few months ago is working. It 
is working. We said we wanted 100,000 new police on the streets. Just 
25 percent of those police are on the streets today. So a fourth of our 
goal only has been realized in terms of putting blue shirts on the 
streets.
   Mr. Chairman, I have been out with my community police that were 
hired under this program in the city of St. Louis. I have walked the 
precinct with them, I have seen the work that they are doing to prevent 
crime, to stop crime before it happens, which is what community 
policing is about, and guess what has happened in my city of St. Louis? 
The crime rate? Down by 2 percent. The murder rate? Down by 24 percent 
in St. Louis. The violent crime rate? Down by 11 percent in St. Louis 
with just a few months of this activity on the ground.
  I visited with the chiefs of police from all over the country in St. 
Louis last week, and they said to me, ``Surely, with the results that 
we're getting, the Congress is not going to take this money away that 
is targeted at police,'' and then they said, ``You know what will 
happen if we have a block grant. It will go to all kinds of things. It 
will get subverted by mayors and by other departments in city 
government and will be taken for things that don't count as much as the 
stoppage of crime that comes from police.''
  Then we hear that in 25 cities across the country the violent-crime 
rate is down, the murder rate is down, the crime rate is down. Why in 
the world, with these statistics and these correlations that we are 
seeing, would we now stop what has already begun to work and go back to 
funding tanks, and funding bazookas and funding all kinds of crazy 
things?
  My colleagues, vote for this Mollohan amendment. Keep the money in 
blue shirts and keep the people of this country safe and secure.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  A moment ago, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] 
held a picture up of the 25 new police officers hired, he said, under 
the COPS Program in Austin, TX. I have got a better deal. Those 25 
officers cost Austin, TX, and its taxpayers some 25 percent of the 
total cost. We are going to give it to them for 10 percent in our bill. 
That is all we require in the local law enforcement block grant 
program, which they can use for cops, if they want. It only costs 10 
percent. Now next year those 25 cops in Austin are going to cost Austin 
taxpayers 50 percent of the cost. The third year it is going to cost 
them 75 percent of the cost, and after 3 years it is going to cost 
Austin taxpayers all of their salaries. In this bill, we will do it for 
10 percent from here on, and they have the option to hire cops. If they 
need cop cars, they can use it for cop cars. And if they are out of 
radios, we will let them use it for radios. We will let them use it for 
whatever they want to do within reason.
  Now the Mollohan amendment also provides, and I want to emphasize 
this, also provides $230 million for those old programs I thought we 
got rid of when we adopted the House-passed bill in February. Remember 
midnight basketball and all of those crazy things we heard about? We 
voted those out in February by a large margin in the House-passed crime 
bill which we are funding tonight in this bill. Under the Mollohan 
amendment those programs are back upon us, midnight basketball and all. 
I urge the Members to vote as they voted in February. As a matter of 
fact, it was February 14, 1995, that a great majority of this body 
voted to pass the crime bill that supplanted the COPS Program.
  Our people back home told us we do not want those crazy programs. We 
cannot afford the local cost share for COPS. We want the local option 
on how we use our money. We want our sheriff, our police force, our 
mayor, our county executive, our local city council--we want them 
deciding where the money goes, not some bureaucrat in Washington, and 
especially the Congress of the United States, and the White House.
  So I urge the Members to vote as they did in February. My colleagues 
are on record as supporting an alternative to the COPS Program. Tonight 
we fund the alternative to the COPS 

[[Page H 7644]]
Program, the local block grant for law enforcement officials to do the 
job of fighting crime in our communities recognizing the diversity of 
these towns and cities that we represent. What works in New York City 
may not work in Burnside, KY. In fact, I guarantee it will not work 
there. Give us the option of using the money as we need it in our local 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment.
  The goal was simple when we passed the crime bill, and it's simple 
today. Put more cops on the beat, crime rates will fall, and our 
families will be safer.
  The Mollohan Amendment will help us meet this goal by providing 
continued funding for programs like COPS-FAST--programs that help 
police departments hire new officers and develop innovative, community 
policing programs.
  My Republican colleagues intend to abolish these programs and replace 
them with open-ended block grants. They miss the point.
  The Republican block grant proposal does not guarantee more cops on 
our streets. In fact, under the Republican proposal, grant money could 
be used for anything from street lights to road construction.
  The COPS Program guarantees more cops on the street. I challenge the 
Republicans to make the same guarantee. They cannot.
  COPS grants flow straight from the Justice Department to local law 
enforcement agencies. We have cut down on administrative overhead by 
streamlining the application process, and taken other steps to reduce 
redtape.
  The COPS Program empowers local communities to take responsibility 
for community safety by putting more police officers where they need 
them most. It doesn't mandate a Federal solution to problems that are 
often unique to neighborhoods and communities. The COPS Program 
succeeds because it empowers community police departments to try 
innovative new strategies to combat crime and make the best use of 
available resources.
  Neighborhood officers work with volunteers to keep our streets safe 
and our communities informed. Crimefighting experts and officers on the 
beat agree that community policing works.
  The COPS Program is a non-bureaucratic solution to a terrible 
problem. And the result is a marked decrease in crime: in theft, 
burglary, and other more serious crimes.
  In Sacramento, citizens are involved in this effort, working with 
local law enforcement and injecting--in their efforts--a new spirit of 
cooperation and teamwork.
  I want to talk about how this program has worked in communities in my 
district because it really provides an example of how successful this 
program can be, and how, with some support, we can begin to address 
fundamental problems with local solutions, not Washington solutions.
  In Sacramento County, California several groups of volunteers and 
local law enforcement officers have joined hands to establish Sheriff's 
Community Service Centers. One of the first was in my district in North 
Highlands, an unincorporated area of the county.
  Without fanfare, but with tireless devotion, this group of volunteers 
and deputies have made a tremendous contribution to community safety.
  With an all-volunteer staff and a roster of deputies paid through a 
COPS grant and county matching funds, the North Highlands center is 
both a thriving community center and an indispensable component of the 
Sacramento County law enforcement team.
  Volunteers work side-by-side with deputies, helping out with many of 
the day-to-day responsibilities that keep the wheels of justice 
turning: taking crime reports, providing a safe haven for neighborhood 
kids, and helping others navigate through the sometimes confusing world 
of law enforcement and county services.
  Since January of this year, volunteers have logged 4000 crime 
reports. Many of these volunteers spend 40 hours a week at the center, 
motivated--as one volunteer put it--by ``a real sense of pride in their 
contribution to the neighborhood.''
  The spirit of community involvement extends well beyond the walls of 
the North Highlands Center. The office space is donated. So is the 
furnitue--right down to the carpet.
  Deputies like Willie Nix have found new ways to approach old 
programs. Deputy Nix--a patrol cop before coming to work with the North 
Highlands staff--talked just the other day about the advantages of 
community policing.
  An officer on patrol usually has just enough time to drive to a 
location, take a report, and drive away. ``Now,'' he said, ``I can work 
with local agencies, neighbors, landlords, and the community to attack 
crime from every angle.''
  In some areas, drug dealers have literally trashed the community. 
Deputy Nix works with community members and service center volunteers 
to address this problem from the branches down to the roots: towing 
abandoned cars, cleaning up yards soiled with garbage, and returning 
the street to law abiding citizens.
  Deputy Nix is busy, but he sets time aside to work with local 
schoolchildren. Because center volunteers have worked hard to establish 
after-school programs, many of these kids have more than just a uniform 
to turn to--they have an entire network of support, from reading and 
arts programs to safe recreational facilities in the evening.
  What may seem like a common sense solution is only possible if other 
communities can afford to hire officers like Willie Nix. In cities and 
towns around the country, volunteers who are committed to breaking down 
barriers and developing a community commitment to law enforcement will 
rise to the challenge--but only if they are given the opportunity.
  Just today, I learned that other communities in my area will get that 
opportunity. A grant to the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department will 
free 22 deputies from administrative duties and redeploy them into 
community policing.
  And police departments in Colusa, Davis, Glen County, Gridley, Red 
Bluff, Rio Vista, Sutter County, West Sacramento, Willows, Williams, 
Winters, Woodland, Yolo County, and Yuba City have already received 
grants that will allow them to put additional officers on the street.
  If we pass the Mollohan amendment, and if we continue our commitment 
to the COPS Program, we can duplicate the efforts of the North 
Highlands Community Service Center a hundred-thousand times over, and 
make our streets, our neighborhoods, and our communities a whole lot 
safer.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to rise today in strong 
support of the Mollohan amendment to H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 
Commerce, Justice, State & Judiciary Appropriations Act, and the COPS 
Program.
  The Mollohan amendment would restore crucial funding for COPS 
Program, or the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which 
has been highly successful in Buffalo and throughout Western New York.
  Since the program was first authorized in the Crime Bill of 1994, law 
enforcement authorities throughout Western New York already have 
received funding to hire 28 additional officers.
  Nationwide, the COPS Program has authorized funding for 18,159 
community policing officers. This is in addition to the 2,080 new 
officers funded under the 1994 Police Hiring Supplement (PHS) Program, 
bringing the total to 20,239 more officers on the beat across the 
country. In 1993, the Buffalo Police Department received funding to 
hire more than twenty officers under the PHS Program.
  One of the COPS Programs' most successful programs is COPS MORE. MORE 
puts additional officers on the street by funding equipment, 
technology, hiring of civilians and overtime.
  Last summer, the Commissioner of the Buffalo Police Department 
requested the flexibility to use grant funding where it is most needed. 
Under COPS MORE, the Buffalo Police Department recently received $1.3 
million. The funding has enabled the Department to get cops out of the 
precinct and back onto the street where they belong.
  Like you, I am appalled by the following statistics: A murder occurs 
every 21 minutes; a rape every 5 minutes a robbery every 46 seconds; an 
aggravated assault every 29 seconds; a burglary every 20 seconds; and a 
larceny theft every 4 seconds.
  If we keep those alarming facts in mind, this vote is very simple. 
More copes on the street, means more hoodlums behind bars. I urge all 
of my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment in order to restore 
necessary funding so that the successful COPS Program may continue.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan 
amendment to H.R. 2076, to preserve a program that is a success in 
communities such as my own, and throughout the land.
  Community policing programs are supported by policy professionals and 
public officials of both parties. Cops on the beat enables communities 
to combat crime in a cost effective way.
  For people living in the grip of fear, for people peering out barred 
windows into once-friendly streets, community policing offers results. 
The familiar figure of a neighborhood officer, who knows the residents 
and cares about them and for them on a personal level, is the best tool 
we can employ in our fight against crime.
  Many communities in my district, including Kansas City, Blue Springs, 
Lee's Summit, and Raytown, have filled out the 1-page application and 
joined the Federal Government in a partnership to fight crime. They 
have come to the Justice Department with innovative community policing 
plans and have been rewarded. But these cops on the beat are just the 
beginning in our efforts to take back the streets. Eventually, the 
President plans to place 100,000 police officers on America's streets. 
That means even more police on the streets of the communities I 
represent.

[[Page H 7645]]

  We need targeted programs with the set mission of preventing crime; 
community policing is a proven program that reduces crime. With the 
will of this body, it can continue to be a cost-effective crime buster. 
Please join me in supporting our cops on the beat: support the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mollohan 
amendment. This amendment is probusiness and proenvironment. There are 
hundreds of communities across American that depend on healthy 
fisheries for their economic well-being. In recent years, many of these 
communities have spent millions of dollars to help bring back their 
long-depleted fish populations. The Mollohan amendment will correct 
this bill's attack on the commitment between the government and 
communities to restore their local economies.
  The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, along with 
the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, both support the 
Mollohan amendment. They represent over 5,000 businesses and over 
200,000 jobs all along the Pacific Coast. According to these two 
important groups, ``Fishery management cannot happen unless fishery 
research and conservation are properly funded . . . [the bill] cuts at 
the heart of many important ongoing research efforts that help our 
industry be more effective and protects our industry's economic future 
. . . It makes no economic sense to eliminate them.''
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 232, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 571]

                               AYES--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--232

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachus
     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Dooley
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Hilliard
     Hunter
     Jefferson
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Myers
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Saxton
     Stark
     Volkmer
     Yates
                              {time}  2032
  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Yates for, with Mr. Bachus against.
       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Forbes against.

  Messrs. TAUZIN, HORN, and DAVIS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 571, I was unavoidably 
delayed by an urgent matter concerning my district.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoyer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer: Page 25, line 13, strike 
     ``$1,500,000 for Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs, as 
     authorized by section 220002(h) of the 1994 Act'' and insert 
     ``$1,000,000 for Law Enforcement Family Support Programs, as 
     authorized by section 1001(a)(21) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as added by section 
     210201 of the 1994 Act; $500,000 for Motor Vehicle Theft 
     Prevention Programs, as authorized by section 220002(h) of 
     the 1994 Act''.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply provides $1 million in 
funding for the Law Enforcement Family Support Program. I want to thank 
my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman, 
who has had the opportunity to review this. I understand it is 
acceptable to him.
  I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia 
in working with me to fashion this so it could be effected.
  Mr. Chairman, under the Law Enforcement Family Support Program, the 
Attorney General makes grants to States and local law enforcement 
agencies and law enforcement organizations to provide family support 
services to law enforcement personnel. This important program was 
authorized by the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. 
These grants will allow local law enforcement agencies to provide 
counseling for law enforcement families, stress reduction programs, 

[[Page H 7646]]

post shooting debriefing for officers and their spouses. Law 
enforcement family services and counseling for families of police 
killed in the line of duty.
  The pervasive nature of job related stress in law enforcement was 
highlighted in 1986 when a nationwide assessment of law enforcement 
training needs found that State and local officers in all types and 
sizes of agencies ranked the need for training in personal stress 
management as the highest priority.
  The law enforcement family support programs places heavy emphasis on 
family well-being.
  All to often, the work of the law enforcement community is 
overlooked. Everyday, they risk their lives to keep our neighborhoods 
safe. Everyday, they struggle to uphold justice fairly and equitably. 
Every day, they work vigorously to remove those who work to terrorize 
our communities. This hard work places a heavy personal burden on them 
and their families.
  Law enforcement is the single most stressful and dangerous 
occupation, requiring life and death decision all in a days work. Last 
year, nearly 160 officers were killed in the line of duty and another 
300 took their own lives.
  Our police dedicate their lives to and serving our communities. We 
must do what we can to aid these brave citizens and their families who 
sacrifice so much for us.
  My amendment is fairly funded by reducing the Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Program to the level it was funded in fiscal year 1995. The 
committee had zero-funded the family law enforcement programs and I 
believe this is a more equitable distribution of funds in this time of 
fiscal constraints. I appreciate the support of the chairman and the 
ranking member for this amendment and hope my colleagues will join us 
in aiding the families of our Nation's police.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. If the gentleman will yield, we have no objection, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hayworth) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ewing, Chairman pro tempore 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. 
2076) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________