[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7784-H7791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote 582 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been here, I would have cast an ``aye'' 
vote.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, so that Members will not be confused, I do not intend to ask 
for a recorded vote now on the Skaggs amendment as amended. We would 
proceed with the Serrano amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, since there is not a rollcall vote on the 
Skaggs amendment, is the next vote the Serrano amendment, which would 
be number 5 in the normal order?
  The CHAIRMAN. To be perfectly clear, the next vote is on the Skaggs 
amendment, as amended. It is our hope it will be approved by voice. 
Once that is approved by voice, the next vote under the pending 
business will be the Serrano vote.
              amendment offered by mr. skaggs, as amended

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                amendment no. 37 offered by mr. serrano

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 277, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                               AYES--150

     Abercrombie
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     
[[Page H7785]]


                               NOES--277

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Hall (OH)
     Moakley
     Reynolds

                              {time}  2226

  Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. SPRATT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in defense of an organization 
that rises in defense of the poor and underprivileged of our country 
every day. The Legal Services Corporation was created under a 
Republican President and had at the outset very laudable goals: helping 
to give a sense of inclusion in the legal process and respect for the 
rule of law to the least wealthy of our society.
  Perhaps there have been abuses of this program in the past. As with 
any government program, those activities considered by some to be 
abusive can be and have been addressed. But eliminating this important 
program would be a quintessential case of using a meat cleaver where a 
scalpel is desperately needed and much more appropriate.
  At the core of this program is still the belief that even the least 
influential members of a society should have a voice in the legal 
proceedings that determine the way in which that society is ordered. 
The members of the Appropriations Committee have tried to return us to 
this commitment, and that commitment is what we as a body must continue 
to guarantee our least fortunate.
  LSC, just like every program, must be reevaluated and prepared to 
share in the effort to balance the budget. But it has been reexamined 
and it will share in the effort to balance the budget: further cuts 
could render this program very inadequate.
  I urge my colleagues to refrain from swinging the budget ax down on 
the LSC. Legal services for the poor is something no democracy can go 
without.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my serious 
concern regarding the decision to eliminate funding for the East-West 
Center in H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
  For those of my colleagues not familiar with the East-West Center it 
is a national education institution administered by a public, nonprofit 
educational corporation under a grant from the United States 
Information Agency. Established by the Mutual Security Act of 1960 
(Public Law 86-472) the East-West Center promotes better relations and 
understanding between the United States and the nations of Asia and the 
Pacific through cooperative programs of research, study, and training.
  The friendly relationships that exist today between the United States 
and the countries of Asia and the Pacific can be attributed in many 
ways to the East-West Center's work. More than 20 countries in the 
Pacific region, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Fiji, Indonesia, Papua 
New Guinea and even Bangladesh and Pakistan acknowledge the value of 
the East-West Center's programs by their cash contributions. The East-
West Center was one of the early institutions involved in the Asia 
Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] process.
  Congress and governmental agencies, such as the Department of State, 
Department of Energy, and the Agency for International Development 
[AID], utilize the Center for advice and information. In fact, the 
Clinton administration acknowledged the value of the East-West Center 
by including it in their fiscal year 1996 budget request.
  Given the continued rise of Asia as the fastest growing economic 
region in the world, and the critical role of Asia in our economic 
future, it is more important than ever that we continue to support the 
East-West Center.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the support of the 
substitute amendment offered by Mr. Rogers and Mr. Mollohan to H.R. 
2076, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996.
  This amendment will restore funding for several important programs 
under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration [NOAA], including the Coastal Zone Management Act and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service thereby allowing marine research 
and preservation efforts on our Nation's coastlines to continue. The 
hazards plaguing our coastal waters have multiplied at an alarming rate 
as the coastal population has grown. Since 1950, the coastal population 
has grown over 80 percent.
  In addition to their environmental significance, America's coastal 
resources support many key industries. For example, coastal resources 
sustain a national travel and tourism economy that generates billions 
of dollars annually.
  Our coasts also provide habitat and spawning areas for 70 percent of 
the Nation's commercial and recreational fisheries. America's marine 
sanctuaries and coastal resources also provide much-needed sites for 
recreation, education, inspiration, and personal exploration.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise to offer my support for the amendment 
offered by Mr. Farr. This important amendment provides funding for the 
marine sanctuaries around our coastline.
  The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, located off the 
coast of San Francisco, is an excellent example of the successes 
achieved by the Sanctuary program. Since its designation in 1981, the 
Farallones Sanctuary has participated in various community partnerships 
ranging from the creation of a volunteer shoreline monitoring program 
to the development of a marine learning center in San Francisco.
  The Sanctuary combines a spectrum of marine habitats with a 
tremendous diversity of marine life. Giant kelp, dungeness crab, the 
endangered Blue Whale, elephant seals, and the largest concentration of 
breeding seabirds in the continental United States are just several of 
the marine species found in the Sanctuary. The Farallones Sanctuary 
also contains highly productive commercial fisheries, shipping lanes, 
and private mariculture operations.
  Mr. Chairman, without these amendments, the successful partnerships 
that NOAA has forged between communities, industries, and universities 
to protect the Nation's pristine marine environments through research, 
education and management would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
continue.
  We are a coastal nation, predominantly surrounded by water. The 
health of our Nation depends on how we protect these waters and their 
living treasures.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose any 
cuts in funding for the Legal Services Corporation, a move that would 
effectively shut millions of Americans out of the justice system.
  For almost 30 years, federally funded Legal Services programs have 
promoted confidence 

[[Page H7786]]
by low-income Americans in our system of laws. These Americans, like 
all of us, need to believe there is a real system in place to resolve 
disputes ranging from consumer fraud and housing issues, to domestic 
relations problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about the effect such cuts 
would have on many of the people who live in my district in Detroit, 
who rely on the pro bono assistance provided by the Legal Services 
Corporation. Without some kind of legal aid, the Nation's poorest 
citizens, including many of my own constituents, would have no recourse 
against unscrupulous merchants, no help in arranging adoptions or 
enforcing child support orders--in short, no access to the American 
legal system.
  Families facing unjust evictions, disabled Americans who have to 
fight bureaucracy, women whose lives are threatened daily by domestic 
violence--these are the victims if the Legal Services Corporation loses 
funding. Helping such people is the essence of democracy.
  My Republican colleagues who want to do away with a Federal tradition 
of funding legal services for our Nation's poorest citizens would be 
wise to remember the words of one of their own former Presidents, who 
in successfully promoting the 1974 bill to fund Legal Services, said 
the program should ``become a permanent and vital part of the American 
system of justice.''
  I urge my colleagues to think twice before they do away with one of 
the few remaining resources that protects the rights of the poor.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.
  One of the most disturbing provisions of H.R. 2076 is the huge cuts 
for the Legal Services Corporation [LSC] and the restrictions placed on 
LSC grantees. Since LSC was created in 1975 with President Nixon's 
support, the LSC has successfully provided assistance to millions of 
Americans who would otherwise be unable to afford legal representation. 
If only Americans who can pay for a lawyer have the chance to be 
legally represented, then the term justice has no meaning to a large 
portion of America. Clearly, in a nation like ours, it is vital that 
the justice system is open to all Americans, not just those who can 
afford it.
  Already, LSC turns away 43 percent of eligible clients because its 
resources are so limited. The cuts in H.R. 2076 will reduce their 
ability to serve poor Americans even further. I am also concerned about 
H.R. 2076's impact on the National Clearinghouse for Legal Services. 
The clearinghouse, which is in my congressional district, provides 
much-needed resources and training to legal service agencies across the 
country and to lawyers working pro bono to provide legal assistance to 
poor Americans. In addition, the clearinghouse publishes the 
Clearinghouse Review of Poverty Law which provides updated analyses of 
legal developments in poverty law.
  Also, I want to voice my concern about H.R. 2076's lack of funding 
for the Violence Against Women Act and the Community Oriented Policing 
Services Program [COPS]. The Violence Against Women Act and COPS 
program are intended to fill gaps in our anticrime efforts. Without 
funding, however, these important efforts will be completely 
undermined. Just last year, Congress passed the Violence Against Women 
Act with unanimous, bipartisan support. This year, we are effectively 
abolishing the act by not providing sufficient funding for it. That is 
clearly giving with one hand and taking it back with the other. I doubt 
most Americans support this type of backdoor reneging on such important 
anticrime laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I intended to oppose H.R. 2076 and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I am most concerned about, and opposed 
to, the cuts to Indian legal service programs in H.R. 2076, the fiscal 
year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill. 
In the bill, the Appropriations Committee has not only reduced funding 
of the Legal Services Corporation from $400 million to $278 million--a 
30 percent reduction--but the committee also eliminated the separate 
line item for native American program funding, which last year provided 
$10 million in funding. These actions will undoubtedly end in the 
termination of many Indian legal services programs.
  Why is this Congress again abandoning those who need our help the 
most? Across countless Indian reservations, Indian legal services are 
the only source of legal aid to the poor and lawyerless. When 51 
percent of American Indians living on reservations live below the 
poverty line, when Indian children have the highest dropout rate of any 
minority group, when 20 percent of Indian homes lack toilets, and when 
reservation unemployment levels average 50 percent and run up to 80 
percent, who else but Indian legal services attorneys can they turn to 
for legal assistance?
  I hope that those who still feel that Congress should cut the funding 
for Indian legal services will at least read the well-written and 
researched editorial, which I have attached, that describes the 
destructive effects that these cuts will have on Indian country.
  Presently there are 33 Indian legal services programs in existence. 
The $10 million in fiscal year 1995 funding made possible the work of 
approximately 150 attorneys, paralegals, and tribal court advocates 
serving clients on over 175 Indian reservations as well 220 Alaska 
Native villages. The work of these attorneys has helped tribes develop 
tribal courts and create programs for the prevention of domestic abuse 
and violence. In addition, legal services attorneys provide family 
counseling, child support enforcement, and help ensure the delivery of 
health care services to the poor, elderly, and disabled. In large 
Western Indian reservations, Indian legal services attorneys are often 
the only attorneys available in areas as large as the State of 
Connecticut. In Oklahoma, a staff of only 4 legal services attorneys is 
responsible for serving over 150,000 eligible people from 38 tribes. 
Cutting the funding for native American legal services will have a 
devastating effect on these and other Indian programs.
  There is one more problem with this bill. The bill requires that 
Indian legal services programs compete for the remaining funding under 
a census-based formula--a scheme that will result in even further cuts 
to these programs which already are set to undergo drastic reductions. 
The current legal services line item funds Indian legal services 
programs at a level that is three to four times greater than the actual 
number of reservation-based individuals listed in the 1990 census. Past 
studies have justified the need for increased funding for Indian legal 
services by as much as seven times the numbers that a straight census-
based formula would yield. Increased funding on a non-census basis 
helps overcome such factors as geographic remoteness, access to legal 
resources, and language and cultural barriers.
  Census-based funding also ignores the unique relationship between the 
Federal government and the Federal Government's prior recognition that 
census-based funding is unworkable. Since the inception of the Legal 
Services Corporation in 1974, it has been conceded by both Democrats 
and Republicans that effective legal services for Indians cannot be 
provided strictly on census-based numbers because: One, many tribes are 
not large enough to justify the funding of even one lawyer; and two, 
actual operating costs for Indian legal services attorneys are much 
higher than for other legal services programs because of remoteness and 
the unavailability and high costs of goods and services on 
reservations.
  It is unconscionable, and a violation of this country's trust 
responsibility to native American tribes, that this Congress would 
eliminate the Indian people's most reliable access to the American 
system of justice. For the past 30 years, Indian legal services have 
become an integral part of this Nation's promise of equal access to 
justice. This bill will literally result in the denial of justice to 
the native American people.
               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 15, 1995]

                           Lawyers Doing Good

                          (By Colman McCarthy)

       In the current assaults on lawyers, among the undeserving 
     of scorn is the small, nearly invisible band of attorneys 
     whose clients are Native Americans. They toil for Indian 
     Legal Services in such outposts as Window Rock, Ariz., and 
     Penobscot, Maine, and serve poor people in tribes ranging 
     from the well-known--Navajos; Sioux and Cheyenne--to the less 
     known: Menominees of Wisconsin, Houmas of Louisiana and 
     Shinnecocks of Long Island.
       Some cutters in Congress--budget cutters, deal-cutters, 
     corner-cutters--have announced that federal funding should 
     stop for the Legal Services Corp., of which Indian Legal 
     Services is a part.
       From its origins in 1966 with the Office of Economic 
     Opportunity, and its rebirth in 1974 as a federally supported 
     independent corporation, Legal Services has had a client list 
     of the indigent and habitually lawyerless. This year's budget 
     is $415 million, which covers the work of 4,600 lawyers--
     starting salaries are as low as $22,000--in 320 programs.
       The caseload involves civil law which, for the poor, is 
     really underdog law. An estimated 70 percent of America's 
     lawyers work for 10 percent of the population. For those who 
     are billable, there is one lawyer per 300 people. For those 
     who aren't, Legal Services supplies one lawyer for 6,000 to 
     7,000 people.
       If the destructive plans of Rep. John Kasich, the Ohio 
     Republican who chairs the House Budget Committee, and Sen. 
     Phil Gramm, who fantasizes that he should be president, are 
     fulfilled and Legal Services goes under, the severest losses 
     will be felt by the 2 million tribal Americans who have only 
     150 lawyers and paralegals between them and despair. Eleven 
     Indian Legal Services programs are operating with 22 smaller 
     offices folded within state agencies. Their share of the 
     corporation's $415 million is $10 million.
       The practice of Indian Legal Services in Wisconsin is 
     typical. The state has 11 tribes, 

[[Page H7787]]
     with three lawyers in an office located in Wausau. The senior attorney 
     is James Botsford, who went into Indian law immediately after 
     graduating from the University of North Dakota law School in 
     1984. What inspired him then is what drives him now: going to 
     the office every day and knowing deep in his soul that if he 
     weren't there serving his clients they wouldn't be served at 
     all. How many Wall Street or K Street lawyers can say that?
       ``There aren't many attorneys in the north woods of 
     Wisconsin,'' Botsford says. ``And precious few of those who 
     are here have an interest, or even willingness to take Indian 
     law cases. With all the poverty, remoteness and unique Indian 
     law issues, we are able to provide legal help in only a small 
     percentage of the cases that come up.''
       Among other puzzlements, Botsford wonders why Republicans 
     have it in for Legal Services: ``Much of our work in 
     Wisconsin in consistent with the values that Republicans say 
     they stand for--keeping families together, helping people to 
     get off welfare, protecting families when there is violence 
     in the home.''
       Others also are at a loss to figure out why Republicans are 
     picking on Legal Services. In the April 10 National Law 
     Journal. Bruce Kauffman, a former justice of the Pennsylvania 
     Supreme Court and now a senior partner in a Philadelphia law 
     firm, identifies himself as ``a conservative Republican'' who 
     has ``spent the better part of my life fighting for 
     Republican candidates and causes.''
       Kauffman confesses to having once swallowed whole the 
     falsity that Legal Services lawyers were agitators pushing 
     ``their social service agenda. Over time, however, I came to 
     realize that the [program] acts very much like a law firm for 
     the poor, helping individual clients grapple with personal 
     problems that threaten to overwhelm them. Without these 
     services, they have no recourse.''
       In his article--titled ``A Conservative Plea to Save 
     LSC''--Kauffman pledges--``I simply cannot stand by and watch 
     the gutting of federal legal aid efforts on behalf of the 
     poor.''
       For Indian Legal Services lawywer, Judge Kauffman is a 
     welcome ally. And a natural one, too. As the four attorneys 
     serving 38 tribes out of the Oklahoma Indian Legal Services 
     office, or the one lawyer in the Dakota Plains Legal Services 
     or any other tribal lawyers could explain the program has 
     always had bipartisan support--from Richard Nixon to Hillary 
     Clinton.
       All the more perplexing that Kasich, Gramm and other 
     enemies of Legal Services are out to destroy what so many 
     others have praised. Are they that our of touch?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to 
restore funding in the bill for the State Justice Institute. Since 
filing the amendment, I have realized that a number of Members are not 
familiar with the work of the State Justice Institute, thereby leading 
me to conclude that now is not an opportune time to debate SJI funding. 
I will not offer the amendment.
  But I want to let my colleagues know that there is a clear Federal 
interest in supporting programs like SJI, which promotes a just, 
effective, and innovative system of State courts. State courts have 
been the beneficiaries of more than 800 projects improving the quality 
of the justice they deliver, and the Federal judiciary has worked 
closely with SJI to improve the working relationship between the State 
and Federal courts.
  Federal assistance to State courts is as appropriate as Federal 
assistance to State law enforcement, prosecution, and corrections 
agencies. By helping the State courts to deliver justice more 
efficiently and effectively, SJI promotes their greater use by 
litigants, thereby reducing the number of cases filed in Federal court. 
Continued funding for SJI would provide the Administration and Congress 
with the opportunity to improve the State courts' response to important 
issues, such as family violence, the rights of children, drug abuse, 
and crime.
  As a Member of Congress who has been active on the issue of domestic 
violence, I can attest to SJI's many contributions in improving the 
State courts' response to family violence. For example, the State 
Justice Institute is the entity responsible for implementing my 
legislation, approved by Congress in 1992, to develop training programs 
for judges and other court personnel about domestic violence, 
especially its impact on children, and to review child custody 
decisions where evidence of spousal abuse has been presented.
  The Judicial Training Act addresses problems that many battered women 
have when they step into the courtrooms in this country to fight for 
custody of their children or to fight for equal justice in criminal 
cases. The response of our judicial system to domestic violence has 
been one of ignorance, negligence, and indifference, often with tragic 
consequences. The State Justice Institute has moved expeditiously to 
implement this act, and it has provided important assistance in 
improving the State courts' response to family violence.
  Federal policies can have serious consequences for the State courts 
and often impose substantial responsibilities on the State courts. The 
State justice Institute has provided important Federal assistance to 
help the State judiciaries cope with federally-imposed burdens, such as 
the Child Support Enforcement Act of 1984, the Family Support Act of 
1986, and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. These 
Federal programs should be accompanied by Federal assistance for State 
courts to meet these increased demands. The State Justice Institute has 
filled this important role.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
profound regret and disappointment that the Republican Majority has 
eliminated all funds for the East-West Center in the Commerce, Justice, 
State Appropriations Bill. This short-sighted decision, simply for the 
sake of reaching a zero deficit in 7 years, will have serious 
consequences on the United States' ability to function as an economic 
and military power in the Pacific.
  The elimination of all Federal funds signifies the end of the East-
West Center. The Center was established by the Congress 35 years ago to 
foster mutual understanding and cooperation among the governments and 
peoples of the Asian-Pacific region. In the past 35 years it has become 
one of the most highly respected institutions in the world for its 
expertise in Asian-Pacific issues and for its work in promoting 
international cooperation throughout the region. The friendly 
relationship the United States enjoys with many countries in the Asian-
Pacific region can be attributed to the Center's work over the past 35 
years.
  Over 53,000 Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders from over 60 
nations and territories have participated in the East-West Center's 
educational, research and conference programs. Research conducted by 
the Center has provided a wealth of information on issues ranging from 
peace and military conflict, nuclear proliferation, implications of 
rapid economic growth, future of energy supply, population control, and 
social and cultural changes in the region.
  The Center has achieved it greatest success through its educational 
programs for undergraduate and graduate students. The Center has had 
annual enrollment in recent years between 200-300 students. These 
students have gone on to become ambassadors, scholars, statesmen and 
business leaders who now have tremendous influence in the policy 
decisions of their respective countries (including the United States). 
They all carry with them the knowledge and experience gained at the 
East-West Center which in turn has helped the United States foster 
relationships with Asian and Pacific countries and promote U.S. 
interests in this region.
  Not many people know that the East-West Center was in fact the brain-
child of the great visionary Lyndon B. Johnson. It was his foresight 
and recognition of the increasing significance of the Pacific Region 
and the United States role in that future of this region. The United 
States is as much a part of the Asian-Pacific region as any other 
country. With States and territories bordering and within the Pacific 
region, the U.S. has just as much to win or lose in the economic and 
political future of this region.
  The significance of the East-West Center in the United States' future 
in this region cannot be underestimated. It is inconceivable to me that 
this Congress which 35 years ago understood the importance of Lyndon 
Johnson's vision for American participation in the Asian-Pacific region 
would now act to close down one of our greatest resources for 
information on and cooperation with the countries of the Asian-Pacific 
Region.
  Mr. Chairman, Johnson's clarion call to prepare the United States for 
a time when the Asian-Pacific countries would be among the most 
profitable and powerful in the world is even more relevent today than 
it was 35 years ago. The challenges facing this region and their 
implications for the U.S. have only increased in recent years. The 
danger of nuclear proliferation, ethnic and religious conflict, rapid 
economic growth, human rights issues in this region continue to fill 
the pages of the newspapers on a daily basis. We cannot afford to lose 
the East-West Center during these critical times.
  I strongly oppose the elimination of all federal funding for the 
East-West Center. It is a short-sighted effort to reduce federal costs 
which in the long-term will only result in greater costs to our nation, 
not only in financial terms, but also in terms of our economic and 
political future in the Asian-Pacific region.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, as the House considers the 1996 Commerce, 
Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act, I would like to 
remind Members of the Appropriations Committee's decision to prohibit 
any groups that receive Federal funds from engaging in any political 
advocacy efforts. This important decision marks another step toward 
ensuring that tax dollars go where they're really needed and not toward 
political causes the taxpayer may not support.
  When deciding upon funding for the Legal Services Corporation we 
should apply the same reasoning. Democrats may try and portray the 
Corporation as simply a non-partisan body which provides legal access 
to the poor. 

[[Page H7788]]
This may have been the intention of its founders, but sadly, today, 
nothing could be further from the truth. Instead the Legal Services 
Corporation is more focused on advancing grand social causes than 
helping the poor with ordinary legal problems. It has become an 
unaccountable lobbying group, and as such it is not a worthy recipient 
of Federal funds, especially in our time of fiscal restraint.
  There are numerous examples of Legal Services Corporation abuses of 
taxpayer's money. For instance, LSC money was used to produce a 
brochure explaining how welfare recipients who get a large cash 
windfall, such as lottery prize or insurance settlement, can keep the 
windfall and stay on welfare. In addition, the LSC works to limit the 
ability of housing authorities to evict drug dealers from public 
housing projects. LSC lawyers file suits to block these evictions, 
thereby putting the law-abiding tenants at risk. The LSC is not 
committed to the poor, it is only committed to promoting its own 
radical liberal agenda.
  It is time that we send a strong message to lawyers all over the 
country who have manipulated the LSC to serve themselves and their 
political crusades. The party is over! You can no longer ride free at 
the expense of the American taxpayer. The Republican majority in this 
Congress has declared its intention to stamp out such fraudulent abuses 
of taxpayer's money. Reducing funding for the Legal Services 
Corporation is the next step toward this goal.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from West Virginia, which would eliminate $30 
million earmarked for reimbursements to States for the costs of 
incarcerating criminal aliens.
  In the United States there are over 50,000 prisoners in State and 
Federal facilities who are not American citizens. The incarceration of 
criminal aliens costs taxpayers' between $15,000 and $30,000 per inmate 
annually.
  Last year, American citizens spent between $800 million and $1\1/2\ 
billion feeding, clothing, and housing illegal aliens.
  It is a grave injustice to hold New Jersey and other State residents 
accountable for the Federal Government's failure in it's inability to 
control its national borders.
  The House took steps to remedy this problem when it passed the 
Violent Criminals Incarceration Act earlier this year. A provision in 
the bill, authored by my good friend from California [Mr. Gallegly], 
authorizes $650 million per year for reimbursements to States for 
incurring this burden.
  The bill before us today sets aside $500 million for such 
reimbursements to States, and this proposed amendment would reduce that 
amount by $30 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the message from the American people is clear. Illegal 
immigration has taken a toll on this country. Illegal aliens who commit 
crimes and end up exacting not only personal costs to the people they 
hurt but also economic costs to those same people in the form of their 
tax dollars footing the bill for incarceration.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. The 
drastic cuts made by the Appropriations Committee threaten our efforts 
to combat violent crime, to protect our ocean and coastal environments 
and to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
  In 1994, the Congress passed the most comprehensive measure to fight 
violent crime in our Nation's history. The crime bill represents a 
balance between punishment and prevention which directs resources to 
the state and local level where the majority of crime fighting occurs. 
It will put 100,000 new police on the streets in neighborhoods 
nationwide and ensure that they are engaged in community policing. 
Community policing is an innovative approach to law enforcement which 
is widely credited by police, citizens and community leaders with 
substantially reducing criminal activity and improving relations 
between our police and citizens. The law provides funding for prisons, 
closes the revolving door which allows violent, repeat offenders out on 
to the street time and time again, and directs substantial resources to 
combating illegal immigration.
  Finally, and very importantly, the crime bill provides billions of 
dollars for a wide range of locally designed and implemented efforts to 
prevent crime before it occurs. Prevention programs target young people 
before they become involved in crime and given them alternatives, 
including educational, vocational and recreational opportunities. 
Prevention programs also make good fiscal sense because programs can 
serve an entire community for what it costs to send a single person to 
prison for a year.
  Early in this Congress, my Republican colleagues brought forth a 
series of bills which destroy the balance in the crime bill. As my 
colleagues know, these bills have literally been sitting in the other 
body for months. Perhaps out of frustration the Appropriations 
Committee is now attempting to carry out these policy changes by 
reordering spending in accordance with several of these bills. This is 
a blatant example of legislating in an appropriations bill. This action 
shows that some of my Republican colleagues are willing to use 
appropriations bills to effect changes that they are unable to enact 
into law through the normal process. This policy is disturbing in and 
of itself, but is more alarming because neither the bill nor the report 
provides guidance on what to do if the House-passed bills are not 
enacted into law by the start of the fiscal year. If the bills cited in 
H.R. 2076 do not become law, will funds to combat violent crime be 
allocated under the crime bill or will funding be cut off completely? 
These questions must be answered before the House moves forward.
  The bill eliminates the COPS program, drug courts, crime prevention 
block grants, and assistance for rural law enforcement.
  The COPS program has already put more than 20,000 police on the 
streets across the country, including two dozen in eastern Connecticut. 
The Justice Department has developed an application process which is 
straight-forward and user-friendly. The program is supported by nearly 
every major police organization, including the Fraternal Order of 
Police, National Association of Police Organizations, and the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, as well as the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors. It boggles my mind that the committee would 
eliminate drug courts when drug-related crimes are clogging our 
criminal justice system. In addition, the bill eliminates prevention 
block grants and makes prevention an afterthought in the new Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant Program. This change is completely 
counterproductive and will result in additional spending in the future.
  Finally, the bill provides $100 million less than requested to 
support programs under the Violence Against Women Act. Domestic 
violence and spouse abuse are serious crimes which we have failed to 
adequately address in this country. The crime bill focused on this 
issue by toughening penalties and providing financial support for 
counseling, education and other programs designed to increase arrest 
rates and prosecutions of violators. Instead of following through on 
our commitment to millions of women across the country, the committee 
dramatically underfunds these efforts. These cuts will have real world 
implications for countless women who will continue to be abused, 
injured and killed because the Republican-led Congress failed to 
provide the resources necessary to combat domestic violence on all 
fronts. It is disturbing to me that the committee was able to allocate 
$300 million, $200 million more than requested, to offset the costs of 
incarcerating aliens while it slashed support for efforts to combat 
domestic violence. While women in every State in the Nation would 
benefit by funding violence against women programs at the level 
requested, only a handful of States will benefit from the alien 
incarceration provision. I urge my colleagues to consider this inequity 
when deciding how to vote.
  Much to the credit of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Mollohan, 
H.R. 2076 does not abolish the Commerce Department. However, it makes 
deep cuts in agencies and programs which are vital to assessing our 
environment, protecting our coastal communities, and ensuring that our 
fisheries and other marine resources continue to support economic 
activity into the next century. In addition, the bill deals a blow to 
efforts to promote tourism by eliminating the U.S. Travel and Tourism 
Administration [USTTA]. Moreover, by eliminating initiatives such as 
the Advanced Technology Program [ATP], this bill jeopardizes efforts by 
U.S. companies to develop high-technology products which are absolutely 
essential for maintaining our position in the global economy in the 
next century.
  As a representative of a coastal district and State, I am especially 
opposed to cuts in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
[NOAA]. The bill slashes funding for NOAA by nearly
 $200 million below the current fiscal year and more than $350 million 
below the administration's request. Cuts of this magnitude will deal a 
serious blow to scientific research designed to assess global climate 
change, fisheries and coastal habitats. It is ironic that while many of 
my Republican colleagues are dramatically reducing support for 
scientific research they are demanding that decisions affecting our 
environment be based on sound science.

  The cuts in NOAA have many implications for one half of our Nation's 
population which lives along our coasts. The bill reduces grants to 
states under the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] by $9.5 million 
below this fiscal year. Currently, 29 of 35 coastal States have 
approved management plans and receive Federal support to assist in the 
implementation of those plans. It is important to note that States must 
match Federal support on a dollar-to-dollar basis. Five other States 
are in the process of developing plans. By slashing support by nearly 
$10 million, the bill jeopardizes efforts 

[[Page H7789]]
to finalize the remaining plans and undermines activities in the other 
States to successfully protect marine environments. In addition, the 
committee eliminates all funding--$5 million--to support State efforts 
to reduce coastal nonpoint source pollution. This cut is especially 
egregious when one considers that nonpoint source pollution is 
responsible for at least 50 percent of our remaining water pollution 
problems. These cuts mean that 29 States from Maine to California and 
Pennsylvania to Florida will receive $15 million less to address these 
important issues. My State of Connecticut will see support slashed by 
$444,000--a 37 percent reduction. This cut will adversely impact our 
efforts to safeguard our most important natural resource--Long Island 
Sound. These cuts are merely one example of the real world implications 
of H.R. 2076.
  In another blow to important scientific research, the bill eliminates 
the National Undersea Research Program [NURP]. As the only national 
program specializing in research in our oceans and Great Lakes, NURP 
supports scientists involved in a wide range of research efforts 
relating to fisheries, marine habitat, and environmental technology 
development. This research is central to the mission of NOAA. In 
addition, NURP researchers are among a very small group of scientists 
who specialize in the use of manned and unmanned submersibles and mixed 
gas diving. Underwater robots and manned submarines allow scientists to 
conduct important experiments and observations which are impossible 
using surface-based techniques. This research is highly technical and 
requires years of experience to master. The National Undersea Research 
Program provides invaluable assistance to NOAA in carrying out its core 
mission to ensure the health of our marine environment and the 
sustainability of its resources. Eliminating NURP further undermines 
the ability of NOAA to provide the scientific data necessary to ensure 
that every American can enjoy the benefits of our coastal resources.
  Finally, the bill deals a devastating blow to the National Marine 
Fisheries Service [NMFS] by cutting its budget by $84.5
 million below the administration's request. This cut is a direct 
assault on thousands of communities nationwide which rely on fishing 
for their economic survival. This cut is especially damaging for 
fishermen in New England. As my colleagues may know, commercial fishing 
in the northeast has been sharply reduced as stocks of cod, haddock and 
flounder have collapsed. Overfishing and habitat destruction are 
largely to blame for restrictions which have closed areas of Georges 
Bank and forced fishermen to idle their boats for days at a time. 
Unfortunately, many other parts of the country face similar disasters 
as an increasing number of stocks are being overfished or harvested to 
the maximum sustainable level.

  In order for fishing to become viable again in my part of the 
country, the NMFS must have the resources to accurately assess the 
current status of stocks, to develop and implement rebuilding plans, 
and to monitor the effects of these plans to determine when stocks have 
recovered. The cuts contained in this bill will not allow NMFS to 
effectively carry out these duties. For example, the bill cuts data 
collection and analysis, conservation and management operations, and 
State and industry assistance programs well below the administration's 
request and the fiscal 1995 level. This is just another example of the 
counterproductive cuts in this bill which will make it even more 
difficult to address pressing national problems. Moreover, these cuts 
could rob the economy of nearly $3 billion which NMFS estimates will be 
generated when fish stocks are recovered. Rather than gutting fishery 
conservation and development efforts, we should be investing in these 
areas so that we can enjoy the economic benefits in the future and 
avoid the mistakes of the past.
  I urge my colleagues to support an amendment to be offered by Mr. 
Mollohan which will restore funding for CZMA grants, the NMFS and the 
National Marine Sanctuary program. This amendment will restore CZMA 
funding to the fiscal 1995 level and will provide badly needed funds to 
the NMFS to carry out vital fishery assessment, monitoring and 
rebuilding efforts. While these programs are vitally important to 
coastal communities, fishing, tourism, and other economic activities 
dependent on a healthy marine environment generate billions of dollars 
for the national economy. With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to 
support this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2076 provides funding for some of our most vital 
Federal programs. Among governmental functions, law enforcement is one 
of the most significant. Unfortunately, this bill dramatically alters 
the balance of the crime bill and undermines our efforts to combat 
violent crime. It breaks our commitment to the American people to put 
100,000 new police on the streets. The changes in title I of the bill, 
especially the allocation of funds in accordance with certain bills 
which are not law, are among the most blatant examples of legislating 
in an appropriations bill this member has ever seen. Furthermore, by 
sharply reducing funding for the Commerce Department, this bill 
threatens our economy at home and our competitive position in the 
global marketplace. Finally, the cuts in NOAA programs will be 
devastating to coastal communities which rely on a healthy and 
productive marine environment for their economic survival. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this measure.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Ms. 
Norton's amendment, which would strike the language in this bill that 
prohibits the use of funds for abortions in the Federal prison system, 
unless the life of the mother would be endangered or in the case of 
rape.
  The antiabortion provision in this bill is just another attack on the 
most vulnerable, accessible women in our society--those who are 
dependent upon the Federal Government for their health care.
  Abortion has been a legal procedure in this country for over 20 
years. It is a legal health care option for American women. But, 
because the Federal Government controls her health care, this bill 
would deny a woman in a Federal prison the right to make up her own 
mind as to whether or not she chooses to terminate her pregnancy. She 
could only choose to have an abortion if she could afford to pay for it 
herself.
  A woman in prison has the right to decide to carry her pregnancy to 
term or to terminate it. It should be her decision. And, whatever that 
decision is, she should not be denied her constitutional right to 
receive necessary medical care. I urge my colleagues to support Ms. 
Norton's amendment.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Commerce, 
Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriation bill.
  I have particular difficulties with language the Appropriations 
Committee chose to include in its report. This language directs the 
Small Business Administration to delay implementing its reorganization 
plan ``until the Congress has completed action on legislative changes 
to the SBA's mission.'' In addition, the report states that any changes 
should take place within a consultative process involving the 
authorizing and appropriating committees.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this an unwise instruction for several 
reasons. First, while the House will likely consider an SBA 
reorganization plan this fall, the Senate has made more limited 
progress. Therefore, it is questionable whether reorganization 
legislation will be completed during this session of Congress. 
Moreover, it is even less predictable whether the president would sign 
the resulting bill. In my judgment, it is not sensible to delay the 
SBA's reasonable consolidation and the associated taxpayer savings for 
such an uncertain and possibly lengthy amount of time.
  Second, I believe this language represents another example of the 
attitude that Washington knows best. The Republicans are clearly 
violating their often-repeated pledge to allow local groups to make 
decisions about what is best for them. The SBA formulated its plan 
through close communication with and input from branch and district 
offices, local and State governments, and other interested parties. 
However, the committee majority is prepared to override these local 
decisions and impose its own direction.
  This leads me to a third important point. I am extremely concerned 
that the excessive consultation demanded by the committee will expose 
this reorganization to political pressures. The SBA reorganization 
closes and consolidates a range of offices in many districts and 
States. This consultation may provide an irresistible opportunity for 
Members to maintain offices in their districts or move them back into 
their States.
  Finally, the report language states, ``Changes in SBA's programs and 
responsibilities should be the primary factor in determining the need 
to maintain individual offices in the field structure as well as at SBA 
headquarters.'' In my view, this is an important factor, but not the 
only one. The needs of individual communities and the level of SBA 
involvement there should be equally critical in deciding which offices 
to maintain or close. SBA branches should be located near the people 
and businesses who need and use SBA services.
  Mr. Chairman, I find this report language on the SBA reorganization 
ill-considered and politically motivated. Let's not use the SBA as a 
political football. I urge my colleagues to support removal of this 
language in conference.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2076, the 
Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996.
  Last September the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994 was signed into law by President Clinton. This law pledged to put 
100,000 new police officers on the streets, representing a 20-percent 
increase in this Nation's police force. Since its enactment, over 
20,000 new police officers have already been hired. In my State of 
Minnesota, 

[[Page H7790]]
some 200 new officers are on the streets protecting the citizens of my 
State as we speak. The COPS Program is working, and it is beyond 
comprehension why this committee wants to destroy a program that the 
people and the police of this country want and need.
  This bill attempts to strip the 5 year $30 billion crime trust fund 
established under the 1994 crime law and use it for general block 
grants. These funds, by law, were to be used for law enforcement, crime 
prevention, domestic violence prevention and prisons. Instead my 
Republican colleagues would rather put the money in block grants that 
have no guarantee one cent will be spent to hire more officers or fund 
a prevention program. In fact, this bill intends to fund a block grant 
program policy that has not even been considered by the Senate, much 
less the president, rather than an enacted law and to defund a up and 
running program cops on the beat that is working.
  The COPS Program has put thousands of officers on the beat in our 
neighborhoods and communities to work with and protect the people. If 
my Republican friends truly believe in empowering local citizens, they 
should be supporting this well targeted program, not gutting it. The 
COPS Grant Program has been accessible, understandable and efficient 
since its inception. But do not take my statement alone, just ask the 
Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police 
Organizations, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 
International Union of Police Associations, Police Executive Research 
Forum, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, 
National Troopers Coalition, Police Foundation, National Sheriffs 
Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National 
Black Police Association, Major Cities Chiefs, and the U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, all of whom support the COPS Program.
  The Republican majority apparently has forgotten history in which 
block grants were used for exotic equipment and far flung spending, not 
tangible benefits. Furthermore they reduce the local match therefore 
placing more burden on Federal dollars and spending as opposed to the 
cooperative nature of the COPS Program.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and continue on our 
goal of 100,000 more officers on the streets protecting the people.
  Certainly the partisan antics are playing a role in this instance. 
The Republicans are determined to deny President Clinton his goal of 
achieving and fully implementing the COPS Program. The COPS Program is 
a good program a Clinton Program that should be maintained, let it work 
today and tomorrow, it is helping our communities.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gunderson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 198, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee on the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called 
Meyers amendment restoring moneys to the Office of Advocacy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment on which 
a separate recorded vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment: Page 97, line 8, strike ``$217,947,000'' and 
     insert ``$222,325,000''.
  Page 98, line 6, strike ``$97,000,000'' and insert ``$92,622,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this be a 5-
minute vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlemen from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 368, 
noes 57, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 584]

                               AYES--368

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--57

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Barton
     Burton
     Chabot
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Gekas
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Kasich
     King
     Kolbe
     Livingston

[[Page H7791]]

     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran
     Myers
     Neumann
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Regula
     Rogers
     Roth
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Solomon
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Hall (OH)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Waxman

                              {time}  2238

  Mr. ARMEY and Mr. FOLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DORNAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272, 
nays 151, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 585]

                               YEAS--272

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--151

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (MI)
     Dingell
     Gekas
     Hall (OH)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Smith (WA)
     Waxman

                              {time}  2254

  Mr. SERRANO and Mr. WYDEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________