[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14078-H14112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2076, 
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 289 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 289

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2076) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as ready.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the House to consider and hopefully 
pass H.R. 2076, the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, and State 
Appropriations Conference Report. As most Americans know, we are 
charged each year with enacting 13 appropriations bills to fund the 
major functions of Government.
  This year we have had a difficult time in meeting that goal, given 
the extraordinarily complex challenge of reducing the size and scope of 
Government as we attempt to balance our Federal budget. To date, 7 of 
the 13 spending bills have become law, and we are working hard to have 
the others on the President's desk as quickly as possible. We are 
seeking to work with the White House--but we will not abandon our 
commitment to balancing the budget in 7 years. This conference report 
makes a tangible contribution to the deficit reduction effort, 
providing for a real cut of $700 million from last year's spending 
levels. I wish to commend Chairman Rogers and his entire subcommittee 
for their excellent work in making the tough choices needed to bring 
about such substantial savings, and believe me, I know these were tough 
choices.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a standard one providing for the 
consideration of appropriations conference reports. There is nothing 
unusual about the rule. It is the way we do business. The rule waives 
all points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration, allowing us to proceed with getting this bill passed 
and, hopefully, one step closer to being signed into law. Under House 
rules, this conference report will be debatable for 1 hour and the 
minority will have its traditional right to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, we had considerable discussion about the merits of this 
bill during our Rules Committee hearing yesterday as sometimes happens, 
and I know there is concern among our friends in the minority about the 
crime provisions of this legislation. I should point out that the 
Contract With America outlined a series of important tough-on-crime 
provisions that the congressional majority promised to deliver. 
Although those provisions--including truth-in-sentencing and prison 
litigation reform--passed the House this spring, they have not yet 
moved through the other body, I am sorry to say. Because we know how 
important these anticrime measures are to the American people, we are 
cutting through the legislative logjam that has held them up. I am 
speaking of provisions to help States keep criminals behind bars and to 
stop frivolous prison lawsuits. Over and over again, our constituents 
express frustration that criminals are released early from prison 
because of overcrowding and lenient State parole policies. Our 
constituents are concerned about their safety, as they should be, and 
they want to know that those who commit crimes will do their time. In 
addition, people are extremely frustrated with reports of endless 
lawsuits generated by prisoners that clog the system and syphon off 
precious criminal justice resources. This bill incorporates much of the 
Judiciary Committee's language to address these two problems in the 
hopes that we can finally expedite getting these anticrime measures 
enacted into law before Christmas, I hope.
  There is also some disagreement about the way this bill addresses the 
COPS Program--a pet program of this White House that has placed some 
26,000 cops on the beat across the country, but which, in a few short 
years, will drop the entire burden for funding those policemen on the 
States and localities. In my view, that's a false promise of a very 
short-term gain. It is attractive bait, I admit, but it is a short-term 
gain that in the long run is going to end up costing our communities 
dearly.
  Mr. speaker, I remember the days of the CETA programs. I know what 
happened because I was in another one of those.
  Instead, this bill takes the block-grant approach to allocating those 
anticrime resources, leaving it up to local officials to determine what 
the best use will be for those funds. Additional good news in this 
measure comes in the form of substantial funding for violence against 
women programs and a significant Federal financial commitment to help 
States like Florida cope with the tremendous burden of incarcerating 
criminal aliens. I would point out even though I am from Florida, it is 
not just Florida that has the problem; it is a national problem. A 
careful review of the major provisions of this conference report 
indicates that our House colleagues have done yeoman's work, they have 
done it well, in their negotiations, bringing the House a fiscally 
responsible bill that reflects the priorities of our constituents. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me the 
customary half hour.

[[Page H 14079]]

  Mr. Speaker, crime is a very serious issue in this country. In fact, 
today the top three issues for citizens of the Commonwealth 
Massachusetts are education, crime, and the environment. And I bet it 
is the same in other States.
  Mr. Speaker, life in the United States is not what it used to be. 
Children worry about whether their classmates are bringing guns to 
schools, parents worry about what sorts of drugs are being sold in 
playgrounds, and families worry for their safety even in their own 
homes and neighborhoods.
  It's horrible that many American families feel threatened by violent 
crime on a daily basis. Congress should be doing every single thing in 
its power to make sure our children and families are safe. So, Mr. 
Speaker, I wonder why on Earth my colleagues want to repeal the wildly 
popular cops-on-the-beat program.
  Since 1994, the cops-on-the-beat program has put 26,000 new police 
officers on the streets of this country. These are police officers who 
are trained to prevent violent crime, and illegal drug sales, and sent 
into communities with serious crime problems.
  In Massachusetts alone, we have been given the funding to hire over 
700 police officers over the next 3 years. These 700 police officers 
will be walking our streets thanks to the cops-on-the-beat program.
  But today my Republican colleagues want to kill this program. The 
bill we are considering today will turn the hard-hitting, successful 
cops-on-the-beat program into block grant mush. The funding will be 
used for a no-strings-attached slush fund to the tune of nearly $2 
billion.
  In all likelihood, some of that money, originally meant to stop 
violent crime on our streets, will be swallowed up into municipal 
budgets. It's happened before, and it will probably happen again. The 
newly hired police officers could be let go and our neighborhoods will 
be the worse for it.
  In fact, this money doesn't have to be spent on crime prevention at 
all. It can be used for yachts or bazookas or armored personnel 
carriers or a whole lot of other things that will do nothing about the 
crime on our streets.
  Let's leave well enough alone. Let's leave the cops-on-the-beat 
program as the law of the land. Let's keep those police officers on the 
street and keep our streets as safe as we possibly can.
  Mr. Speaker, although I do not oppose this rule, I am very much 
opposed to this bill. Americans want the police officers walking the 
streets today, to be walking the streets tomorrow. In fact, they want 
even more of them, and Congress should not break its promise.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generous grant 
of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support, obviously, of this rule. This 
rule is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, because of the unusual approach taken 
by the Senate in adopting its version of this bill. Instead of amending 
the House-passed bill, the Senate attached its bill as a single 
substitute amendment to the House bill, and as a result, the entire 
bill was in conference. What we bring back to the House is a substitute 
bill based on the conference agreement. Under that fairly complicated 
scenario, it makes far more sense to waive all points of order, as this 
rule does, and I want to thank the Committee on Rules for moving us in 
this direction.
  The conference report, Mr. Speaker, contains some of the most 
important programs in the Government. Let me highlight one, the 
Nation's No. 1 domestic priority, the fight against violent crime. The 
bill provides major new resources to aid the fight against crime, $14.6 
billion in total, an increase of 19 percent over the current year.
  Of that total, almost $4 billion from the violent crime reduction 
trust fund that was established last year will fund major new 
initiatives to enable our States and localities to wage that war 
against violent crime: $1.9 billion of the money is for the local law 
enforcement block grant passed by this House in February, to give our 
cities and towns, in their discretion, the additional resources they 
desperately need to help make our citizens safe in their own homes; 
$617 million for the new State prison grant program to allow resources 
from the Federal Government to go to the States to provide the 
facilities to make violent criminals serve most of their time; and $175 
million for Violence Against Women Act grants, $50 million above the 
House-passed level, and the full amount that the President requested 
for these new programs to address child abuse and domestic violence, 
problems that have been crying for attention and resources.

  The bill includes funding for a $300 million increase over last year 
for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to regain control over 
illegal immigration, and an increase of $571 million over the current 
year for Federal law enforcement, nearly $200 million above the House-
passed level, for Federal law enforcement: FBI, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, U.S. attorneys and the Federal prisons.
  As this debate unfolds, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are going to hear 
complaints from the other side. They will not like the fact that the 
conference report includes language, in response to a Senate amendment, 
to rein in abusive and frivolous lawsuits by prisoners, language that 
the Administration generally supports. They will not like the fact that 
the conference report includes language to target prison grants to 
States that move forward toward making prisoners serve 85 percent of 
their sentences. They will not like the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the 
conference report includes language that moves away from a Washington-
based cookie cutter grant program in crime control to a program that 
allows communities to use funds at their own discretion for their own 
particular needs.
  For every one of these items, the language was worked on by the 
Committees on the Judiciary of the House and the Senate jointly, and 
includes the text that was agreed on by those committees.
  Mr. Speaker, this is December. We have been debating these issues all 
year long. This bill passed the House in July. It passed the Senate in 
September. The Administration has not said one word to me or to this 
subcommittee or to the full committee or to the House, about what they 
would like to see done in this bill. We have waited. We have asked for 
their assistance and their cooperation. They have refused. We have no 
choice now but to move forward, like it or not.
  Unless we pass a bill and find a way to get it signed, none of these 
resources can become available to our communities. If the programs in 
this bill are important to the Members, if the fight against violent 
crime and illegal aliens is important to the Members, if it is 
important to Members to help stamp out violence against women, then 
vote for this bill. Step forward. Make your move. Let us send this bill 
to the White House, get it over with, and get on with the business of 
the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for this rule and for the conference 
report.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and urge members to vote 
``no'' to the rule and to the conference report.
  This bill would eliminate the current COPS Program that gives grants 
to localities to put 100,000 additional community police officers on 
the streets of our Nation.
  The citizens of my district in Missouri have benefited from this 
program. In 25 cities across the country the violent crime rate is 
down, the murder rate is down, the crime rate is down.
  In my own district the COPS Program in phase 1 has funded 94 total 
law enforcement officers in towns and communities like independence, 
Lee's Summit, Raytown and Sugar Creek. In Kansas City alone 26 law 
enforcement officers have been funded.
  If the COPS Program is turned into a block grant fund, there is a 
real danger 

[[Page H 14080]]
that communities like mine will lose Federal funding and face 
elimination of a successful program that prevents crime. Mr. Speaker, I 
have visited with citizens and law enforcement officials and the cops 
on the beat. I have seen the work that they are doing with community 
volunteers to prevent crime.
  If we allow this valuable program to be made into a block grant these 
funds may be diverted and may not be spent on preventing crime.
  According to the Jackson County prosecutors office, overall crime in 
Kansas City has decreased 15 percent from 1994. This includes a 25-
percent reduction in homicides, 10-percent reduction in violent crimes, 
and a reduction of 5 percent in part 1 crimes such as auto theft.
  The COPS Program has real, tangible, results. The COPS Program is 
working.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to oppose passage 
of this bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], chairman of the Committee on 
Small Business.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the conference 
report on H.R. 2076 and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend 
Chairman Rogers and the rest of my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee for their hard work on this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Small Business Committee I want to 
specifically address the funding provided for the Small Business 
Administration [SBA] in this conference report. At the beginning of 
this year, I established a goal of substantially reducing funding for 
the SBA, while increasing the agency's ability to assist small business 
with their capital needs through guaranteed loans. I am pleased to say 
that legislation authored by the Committee on Small Business, and 
signed into law in October, substantially reduced the subsidy needed to 
operate our two largest guaranteed loan programs. By working 
cooperatively with Chairman Rogers, we have been able to reduce funding 
for the SBA by 36 percent--a savings of nearly $300 million when 
compared to the fiscal year 1995 appropriations, and yet preserving 
those programs that are truly important to small business.
  Despite these very real reductions, there will be no loss of vital 
financing assistance for the small business community. In fact, the SBA 
will be able to provide more guarantees for 7(a) general small business 
loans in fiscal year 1996 than ever before. The Certified Development 
Co. program will be able to help small businesses expand, meeting their 
needs for larger work space and updated equipment, without any 
appropriation whatsoever--the program is now completely self-financing.
   Mr. Speaker, through dedication to reducing Federal spending and 
reaching a balanced budget, and unwavering support of small businesses, 
we have found a way to do more with less. This conference report 
represents fiscal responsibility and strong advocacy for our Nation's 
economic backbone--small business. Again, my compliments to Chairman 
Rogers, and I urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] for a colloquy.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. Speaker, I first congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee in 
bringing a balanced spending bill back from conference that includes 
and funds a number of essential governmental functions. Included in 
this bill is $12 billion for NOAA's National Undersea Research Program, 
otherwise known as NURP. To clarify the priority of this funding, I 
would like to ask if the $12 million is intended for the existing six 
NURP research centers.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, it is.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also further clarify. One of 
these six centers, the Caribbean Marine Research Center, has long been 
recognized for the information it provides on a number of environmental 
concerns. I would ask the chairman of the committee, does the language 
on this conference report assure $1.56 billion for the Caribbean Marine 
Research Center?
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, he is correct, 
it does.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for this 
clarification.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, although I do not intend 
to support H.R. 2076. Although there are many sections of this 
conference report that I find troubling, I will limit my comments to 
the funding of programs at the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology [NIST].
  I want to commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for 
providing adequate funding for the NIST laboratories, and particularly 
for funding the Manufacturing Extension Partnership [MEP] at NIST. The 
MEP was labeled ``corporate welfare program'' by many of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle at the beginning of this Congress. 
However, due to the educational efforts of the small- and medium-size 
business community, my Republican colleagues were able to set politics 
aside and judge the Manufacturing Extension Partnership on its merits. 
As a result, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership is funded.
  I am afraid my Republican colleagues were not so objective in their 
assessment of the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] at NIST. In 
hearings before the Committee on Science this year, the only witnesses 
who spoke against ATP were individuals with no technical or business 
background. Every other private sector witness has supported the ATP 
and programs like it--regardless of whether their company received an 
ATP award.
  Over the over we read in the newspapers, magazines, and journals that 
many U.S. companies are reducing their investment in long-term, high-
risk research and development [R&D] to focus on short-term process R&D. 
As reported by the New York Times--September 26, 1995--the breakup of 
the AT&T lab was due to diminishing corporate interest on the brilliant 
breakthrough discoveries that might lead to an entirely new generation 
of products. It was long-term, high-risk research in the past that 
resulted in the economic strength of the United States today. If our 
companies stop doing research to focus on short-term profits, what will 
be the base of American economic strength in the future? The Advanced 
Technology Program was designed to work with industry to ensure our 
future economic strength.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], the ATP 
represents less than 3 percent of the $12 billion the Federal 
Government will spend on programs that support industrial technology 
commercialization. Where are my colleagues who decry ATP's alleged 
corporate welfare when we provide almost $1 billion to the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program [SBIR] or $3.7 billion to the 
National Institutes of Health [NIH] for applied biomedical research.
  If opponents of so-called industrial welfare were serious, we would 
be debating the widerange of technology commercialization programs 
which the Government funds. This House has not done this.
  Eliminating the ATP is nothing more than a banner for Members who 
pretend this eliminates government corporate welfare. The CBO numbers 
show that it is not. Let's be frank. ATP was targeted by the Republican 
Congress, despite its initiation by a Republican administration, 
because it was enthusiastically endorsed by Bill Clinton--both as a 
candidate and as President.
  Eliminating ATP funding doesn't say we're willing to make hard 
choices--it says we're making the simple choices. Eliminating ATP is 
easy because it is a small program with a small constituency. There has 
been no 

[[Page H 14081]]
substantives debate in any committee or on the floor of the House 
regarding the merits of this or related programs. Spouting platitudes, 
opponents of ATP have killed it for purely political reasons.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the many reasons for opposing this conference 
report is because of the threat that it poses to America's economic 
security. We have in recent years in this country recognized that 
research and development is a key to our economic future, that if we 
are to have good-paying jobs for young Americans, we have to invest and 
invest appropriately in research and development.
  This bill, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] just 
indicated, is not nearly as bad as the one that went to the conference 
committee, remains a real setback with reference to applied technology 
and the investment that is going to be necessary to assure that those 
good jobs are there in the future.
  Over the last 50 years, Mr. Speaker, American know-how and invention 
have generated up to half of this country's economic growth. Federal 
support is crucial in assisting this. Millions of jobs have been 
created in industries because of wise private and public investments, 
particularly when there has been private and public partnership in 
areas like semiconductors and biotechnology.
  Let us compare what we are doing under this bill with what some of 
the other countries in the world are doing. In fact, if we are to look 
specifically at Japan, one of our strongest economic competitors, after 
this bill is passed, you see that the Japanese are steadily increasing 
their investment in nondefense research and development, but our 
investment will go steadily down. It is going in the wrong direction. 
We do a little investment; they take the ideas and commercialize them, 
and we end up being the consumers and having a huge trade deficit as a 
result.
  What about other countries throughout Asia that are our economic 
partners at times, but also our strong economic competitors? If you 
look at Singapore, if you look at South Korea, if you look at Taiwan, 
even if you look at India, you see that their commitment to expand 
their research and development is significantly greater than what our 
Republican colleagues propose to do under this bill. To suggest that 
the private sector can pick up all of the slack does not comport with 
history. Indeed, it is quite the contrary.
  Usually when public investment goes up, private investment goes up as 
well. When you cut key research and development, as this bill does 
through the irresponsible abolition of the Advanced Technology Program, 
you will have less private investment as well as less public 
investment.

  The cuts in ATP, in the Environmental Protection Agency's 
environmental technologies initiative and the Department of Energy's 
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs all represent a 
significant setback.
  I think the editorial writers across America have been picking up on 
the wrong this Congress is doing with reference to our investment for 
America's future. The Republican Dallas Morning News put it very 
plainly in an editorial appropriately entitled ``Cutting Seed Corn.'' 
It said, ``These take-no-prisoners cuts are anything but thoughtful. 
Proposed budget cuts, while having little effect on the deficit,'' 
because this is a very small part of our national expenditures, ``while 
having little effect on the deficit, could main this country's network 
of scientific institutions.''
  The New York Times referred to ``the crippling of American science as 
an irresponsible gamble and a product of those who have been blinded by 
ideological fury.''
  We ought to have bipartisan support for America's economic security, 
for providing those good jobs, and instead this conference report 
whittles away at our future and whittles away at the hope that America 
can provide the top-paying jobs, the quality jobs, and overcome our 
trade deficit by cutting our research at the same time our trading 
partners are increasing theirs. It is a mistake, and this conference 
report ought to be rejected.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we will oppose this rule in the Commerce, 
Justice, and State appropriation bill here today. I am here to talk 
about the COPS Program.
  Being a former police officer myself, I am very concerned about the 
COPS Program. It is a program that works. It has been a very successful 
program. To date, we have hired 26,000 police officers. In every 
jurisdiction in this country 26,000 police officers have been hired, 
and here are the cities and how much money was received. We have 
pending another 18,500 police officers; those applications are 
currently pending with the Department of Justice. We are halfway to our 
goal of 100,000 police officers on the street. There is no reason to 
turn back now.
  It is an easy one-page application. Police officers around this 
country like the program. Money is going directly to them. In fact, 
over half the communities in the United States have applied for the 
COPS Program. We have more applications than what we can fund.
  What happens in this bill? Look at page 21. Page 21 of this 
conference report says that if you are a small community like many of 
the communities I represent, and if your Federal match falls below 
$10,000, the money is then taken away from the COPS Program and put 
with the Governors of the State to use in a manner that reduces crime 
and improves public safety.
  When we had this debate on February 14, we asked not to put in an 
amendment to allow us to build roads, but that was rejected, so you 
believe, at least the new majority believes, that if you build a new 
road, you fight crime and you improve public safety. You might have a 
nice highway, but you certainly do not help any police officers on the 
street and fight crime in your communities.
  So on behalf of the 26,000 police officers throughout this country 
who have been working at this program, whose jobs now are at risk based 
upon the proposal put forth by these conferees, we ask that you reject 
this rule and reject this bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this rule and the 
conference report, and I must respectfully disagree with my colleague, 
whom I greatly respect, on his comments regarding the COPS Program. No 
one supports police officers any more than I think anyone in this 
House, but this COPS Program I do not think has been a success. I think 
if people look at it closely, they realize that this Federal program 
does not fully fund these policemen that are going out on the street.
  It funds only up to 75 percent and, on average, $25,000 a year of 
these packages of salaries and retirement benefits. After 3 years, the 
Federal funding ceases.
  Many localities have therefore, as a result of this mandate of 
putting this much money into the program, have been unable to afford 
officers under this program. Over 600 localities have turned down the 
opportunity to hire up to 1,200 officers when faced with the prospect 
of contributing this kind of money to their salaries. GAO reports 
indicate that over 7,000 localities did not even apply for the COPS 
Program.
  Another problem with this program is that the COPS money has not been 
spent or sent to the areas where the statistics show that there is the 
most violent crime. I think overall in this country we have to realize 
that we must begin to prioritize our fight against crime, and at the 
top of the list, of course, has to go violent crime.
  As an example, one of the cities that we have before us is the city 
of Portland, OR, and in Portland, over 56 percent of the crime that is 
committed in the entire State of Oregon is committed in the city of 
Portland. Yet under 

[[Page H 14082]]
the COPS Program, they were furnished less than 1 percent of the COPS 
money that went to the entire State of Oregon.
  Again, GAO found no relationship between crime rates and whether an 
applicant jurisdiction was awarded a grant. That is very important, 
because again, we have only so much money to go around and communities 
know this and Washington must learn this, that we must prioritize 
violent crime at the top and spend money fighting violent crime.
  GAO also found that less than 50 percent of the people who receive 
COPS money ranked violent crime or drug crimes as one of their top five 
problems. So over half the cases that were getting this money, over 
half the money, did not list violent crime or drug crime as one of 
their major offenses. To me, that is incredible, not a waste of assets, 
but a misuse, and we can find a much better use of these assets in 
those localities where violent crime at least ranks in the top five 
crimes in that community. That is why I strongly favor the concept of 
block grants that is found in our bill.

  Block grants allow money to be spent in communities where there is 
crime and allows communities to spend money in ways that may be hiring 
more police officers, more equipment, or whatever, but more effective 
ways to let the local people use the funds in a way that they think is 
best to fight the crime. What works best in my little hometown of 
Henderson, TN does not necessarily work best in New York City or 
Denver, CO.
  Let the localities decide how to spend this money when they get it 
based on their criminal statistics, their rates of crime, their rates 
of violent crimes, and let them choose how best to use this money.
  Another reason I favor this rule and this bill, Mr. Speaker, it also, 
as I am talking about violent crime, it favors truth-in-sentencing, and 
it puts the burden back on the States where it belongs. We in the 
Federal system have too long had to fill in the gap for State prison 
systems that have broken down. What we do in this bill is provide money 
to the States as an incentive, if they will go to truth-in-sentencing 
where a person, if they are sentenced to 10 years, stands some 
realistic chance of actually serving 10 years in jail. With that 
incentive, we will offer them money to help construct and build the 
prisons necessary to house these people.
  Yesterday the Wall Street Journal indicated in its editorial page 
that overall crime statistics are down. Prison populations are up both 
in the State and in the Federal system. One reason, one clear reason 
why crime rates are down on the outside is because of two things. One, 
people are beginning to learn that if you commit a crime, you will go 
to jail and you will actually serve that time in jail; it serves as a 
deterrent. Two, many of the people who have been committing these 
violent crimes are finally locked up in jail as a result of a mandated 
sentence, a required sentence, and they are in jail where they cannot 
commit crimes against innocent people.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was commenting about his 
district and how crime went down. The Memphis Police Department 
received 40 police officers underneath this COPS program.
  Your district received 82 police officers underneath this COPS 
program, and you are putting them all at risk if you vote for this 
bill. You cannot stand here and tell me that crime did not go down in 
your district with an additional 82 police officers.
  Are you saying those 82 police officers did not do anything to help 
reduce crime in your district? And also Tennessee has pending another 
114 police officers at the Justice Department waiting for approval.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Again I would remind my distinguished 
colleague that the COPS program is only funded for 3 years. And at some 
point the city of Memphis as well as those others in my district will 
have to assume full responsibility for that.
  Mr. STUPAK. That is correct. Reclaiming my time, you said crime was 
going down now and it is these 82 additional police officers your 
district received underneath this program, the COPS program. Not only 
that, you can go to--Oakland Police Department received one police 
officer, Galloway City received one police officer. These little 
communities cannot afford anything without our assistance and you are 
denying them this assistance.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about the really 
astounding and appalling reductions in the Advanced Technology Program. 
Actually reductions is too sugarcoated: the programs have been wiped 
out.
  This is a program that was initiated in the Bush administration and 
carried on in the Clinton administration. As we are all aware, we do 
have a need to get our fiscal house in order. I would suggest that 
cutting technology investments that have been the basis for job growth 
and economic growth in this country for the last two decades is going 
to aggravate severely our economic problems in the future. These cuts 
are foolhardy indeed.
  It is worth noting that our competitors around the world are going in 
the exact opposite direction. Both Japan and Germany are increasing 
their expenditures in applied R&D by 30 percent. We are doing an 
overall cut in science and technology research of 30 percent, creating 
for us a severe problem.
  I am aware that the chairman of the Committee on Science is 
philosophically opposed to the ATP program. I respect the fact that he 
is entitled to his faith and his belief, but I also know that every 
industrialized country in the world is doing the kind of investments 
that we are cutting in this bill.
  We will not pay for the cuts next year. We will not pay for them in 2 
years. But 5 years from now, millions of Americans whose employment is 
tied to prior investments will not be employed, and they will have no 
one to blame but those who have suggested this foolhardy destruction of 
our future.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this bill contains the basic 
authorization that we passed earlier this year in order to have block 
grants for the communities to let them have the flexibility to decide 
how to best fight crime in this country. It is the beginning of a 5-
year process to produce $10 billion to the cities and the counties of 
this Nation, not the States but the cities and counties to let them 
choose whether they want to have more money for cops or whether they 
want to have more money for equipment or whether they want to have 
midnight basketball or whatever program it is that is suitable to them.
  It is the basic adage that we have been talking about for some time 
on our side of the aisle, that what is suitable for Portland, OR, is 
not suitable for Des Moines, IA, or for Jacksonville, FL.
  Let us let the cities, let us let the counties decide where best to 
fight crime on the local level. It also contains the prison grant 
reorganization that puts incentives out there in so-called truth-in-
sentencing that rewards those States who change their laws to make the 
violent repeat felons serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. It 
rewards them by giving them money to build more prison beds. In a 
separate grant it also rewards those States who simply make progress 
towards that by allowing them some grant money to be able to do that. 
Fundamental changes in the law, very critical changes in the law 
necessary to accomplish the end goal of fighting violent crime in this 
country and stopping the revolving door.
  I think the President is making a big mistake if he thinks that he is 
going to 

[[Page H 14083]]
veto this bill on the basis that somehow it destroys his cops on the 
streets program. It does not do that.
  Mr. President, if you will look at what is going to come out here 
today and be passed and be sent down eventually for your signature, you 
are going to find in this bill not a choice between your COPS program 
and a block grant program but the choice is between 100,000 cops on the 
streets or 100,000 cops plus even more cops on the streets and more 
equipment and more flexibility and a better deal with more localities 
participating. There is going to be a very easy stride to make to get 
every single one of the cops that you do not have already onto the 
streets under the block grant program and it is just a better deal for 
the cities. Under your program, you cap off this system, saying that 
the cities and the counties and so forth cannot be reimbursed for cops 
but up to an amount of $75,000 total over 3 years for a single new cop. 
The average new cop according to the Bureau of Justice statistics costs 
$50,000 a year to put on the street. That is $150,000, or twice the 
amount the Government is going to put up under your proposal, what is 
in law right now, over a 3-year period.
  Under the bill we are putting out here today, there is no cap. The 
local community can have all the money it takes or needs to put a new 
cop on the street or as many as they want to put on the street. There 
is no limit. There is a lot more money involved out there. It takes 
about $3 billion more over the next 3 or 4 years to put the rest of the 
100,000 out there, 75,000 more. We have put out more than that. Up to 
$10 billion will be available for that. In addition to that the 
communities will only have to match 10 percent of the money instead of 
25 percent under yours. So it is a far better program.
  I would urge everybody to look at it, especially the President, and 
decide, we will put 100,000 cops and then some on the street if we 
adopt the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill today.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The Chair would remind all 
Members that it is not in order to address the President in debate. 
Members must address their remarks to the Chair. Although Members may 
discuss past and present Presidential actions and suggest possible 
future Presidential actions, they may not directly address the 
President as in the second person.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. To the last 
speaker, he is jeopardizing 80 police officers in his district, 202 
applications pending in Florida, and your bill does not guarantee 1 
police officer. All you guarantee is a manner in which reduces crime 
and improves public safety. Not one police officer is mentioned in your 
bill.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues in the 
Congress to vote against this rule and to vote against the bill as 
well, in that it tears down a legal services system that it took years 
to build. You know who they are handicapping: The poor, particularly 
women and children.
  So I rise today to appeal to my colleagues to look at the two-pronged 
attack that this bill makes on legal services. First of all, it cuts 
the Federal funds for legal services as one attack. Then it restricts 
the type of legal services that the local legal services organizations 
can provide with their own funds. So that is a double handicap.
  We should not send this message from Congress. We should support the 
Legal Services Corporation. They help the poor. We will work hard for 
legal aliens in this country, and we must help to support legal 
services.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report and to 
the rule governing its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, last year 1,200 neighborhood law offices provided legal 
services to 1.7 million clients. The majority of these people were 
women and children living in poverty.
  The conference report before us today contains a two-part attack on 
the Legal Services Corporation, which last year provided about 60 
percent of the funds used by neighborhood legal service organizations. 
The balance of legal services funds comes from private attorneys, 
foundations, local charities, and State and local governments.
  This conference report continues the majority's assault on the 
weakest members of our society.
  The first part of this attack is to reduce Federal funds for the 
Legal Services Corporation by $122 million. This is a cut of 31 
percent.
  The second part of this attack is to restrict the type of legal 
services that the local legal services organizations can provide with 
their own non-Federal funds.
  Let me illustrate the unfair consequences of this restriction by 
sharing with the House a letter I received yesterday from Marcia Cypen, 
executive director of Legal Services of Greater Miami. She points out 
that Legal Services of Miami now uses non-Federal funds to represent 
aliens. Under this conference report, Legal Services of Miami would 
have to choose between giving up all Federal funds or else stop 
representing those aliens who are applying for admission as a refugee 
or for asylum. Many of these aliens have work permits and are working, 
but they are too poor to get private legal assistance. They must come 
to Legal Services of Miami if they have been beaten by their husbands, 
illegally locked out by their landlords, or cheated by a merchant.

  Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the majority to put restrictions on 
the use of Federal funds. But it is wrong for the majority to impose 
its ideological views on services provided by donations from private 
groups and State and local governments that believe it is important 
that all poor people have access to our legal system.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and against this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter referred to in my 
remarks and its attachment, as follows:

                                                 Legal Services of


                                          Greater Miami, Inc.,

                                      Miami, FL, December 5, 1995.
     Congresswoman Carrie P. Meek,
     Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Meek: Thank you for requesting our 
     program's input on HR 2076 which includes funding for the 
     Legal Services Corporation in 1996.
       A crucial failing of the bill is that it precludes 
     representation of certain classes of aliens with non-LSC 
     funds. The particular classes of aliens affected are listed 
     on the attached page. On a practical level what this means is 
     that we cannot, for example, use non-LSC funds to represent a 
     Haitian woman who is beaten up by her husband, illegally 
     locked out by her landlord, or cheated by a used car dealer 
     if she has applied for political asylum and has a work permit 
     but her political asylum application is still pending. 
     Unfortunately, there are many aliens who remain in this limbo 
     situation for several years.
       Approximately five percent of our current non-immigration 
     caseload consists of aliens who will no longer be eligible 
     for legal services with non-LSC funds in 1996. This could be 
     remedied if Section 504(d)(2)(B) were amended to allow non-
     LSC funds to be used to represent aliens not eligible for 
     representation with LSC funds.
       In addition, HR 2076 precludes us from collecting any 
     attorneys fees in 1996. This is inconsistent with the stated 
     goal of reducing LSC's dependency on federal dollars. Our 
     program has relied on income from attorneys fees to bolster 
     our budget, and the lack of this income in 1996 will reduce 
     our services even further.
       We appreciate your concern on behalf of the poverty 
     community of Dade County. Please let me know if you need 
     additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Marcia K. Cypen,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____


                               Memorandum

     Date: December 5, 1995.
     Subject: Ineligible aliens under proposed LSC restrictions.
     From: Esther Olavarria Cruz.
     To: Marcia Cypen.
       I have made two lists, which is necessary to better explain 
     who cannot be represented under the proposed LSC 
     restrictions:
       List of aliens who can be represented by LSC under the 
     proposed restrictions:
       1. Lawful permanent residents.
       2. Aliens who are the spouse, parent, or unmarried child 
     under 21 of a U.S. citizen and have filed applications for 
     permanent residence.
       3. Asylees (individuals granted asylum).
       4. Refugees.
       5. Individuals granted withholding of deportation (higher 
     standard than asylum--very rare).
       6. Individuals granted conditional entry before 4/1/80 (old 
     refugee category--almost no aliens now in this category).
       7. H-2A agricultural workers (limited to representation in 
     employment contract matters only, such as wages, housing, 
     transportation and other employment rights--very small 
     category).
       List of aliens who cannot be represented by LSC under the 
     proposed restrictions:
       1. Asylum applicants.
       2. Parolees.
       
[[Page H 14084]]

       3. Special immigrant juveniles (undocumented children 
     adjudicated state dependents because of abandonment, neglect 
     or abuse).
       4. Battered spouses of U.S. citizens (unless otherwise 
     eligible under #2 above).
       5. Battered spouses of permanent residents.
       6. Aliens in exclusion or deportation proceedings.
       7. Aliens with immediate U.S. citizen spouses, parents, or 
     unmarried minor children who have not filed for permanent 
     residence.
       8. Relatives of permanent residents (unless otherwise 
     eligible above).

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am always told if it is not broke, 
why fix it. We have a bill before us that is attempting to fix things 
that are really not broken.
  If we read the editorials across this Nation, we will find constantly 
decreasing crime numbers. When we read between the lines, we will find 
out that what has happened in those communities, they have joined in 
community-oriented policing. How did they manage to do that? By joining 
in with the 100,000 COPS program.
  We find that with a one-page application, you can go into the rural 
hamlets, the urban centers, and all of them can invest in getting more 
cops on the street, visible cops that interact with the community, 
thereby bringing down crime. In my district alone, we have been able to 
access 529 officers in Houston, some $18 million invested into the 
local economy, and right now in the State of Texas we have 360 
applications pending.
  If it is not broke, why fix it? The communities want policing, they 
want 100,000 cops and they want them to be in their community.
  Then we find that this bill wants to cut 31 percent out of the Legal 
Services Corporation, an institution that we might be able to modify 
and improve. There is nothing wrong with reducing overhead and making 
sure that the operational cost is more balanced. But what do we do 
about family law cases, child custody cases, marital circumstances, 
senior citizens' cases that the Legal Services Corporation, by and 
large supported by bar leaders across this Nation, believe that helps 
people, poor people, access the court system.
  Yet this bill makes an unequal America. What it says is that you who 
can pay can get into the court system but those of you who are the 
working poor, those of you who have trials and tribulations and deserve 
a right to access the court system, if you do not have the money, then 
we are going to knock out the Legal Services Corporation.
  It is because someone on the other side of the aisle has a personal 
agenda and does not want to see poor people address their grievances as 
a right. I think that goes against the Constitution.
  When we begin to talk about the Advanced Technology Program, which I 
believe is the work of the 21st century, we do not have to look to 
Japan and Germany. We can look to our own corporations. They are 
downsizing, they are cutting their research and development 
departments.
  What are your youngsters going to do in the 21st century when they 
come out with their engineering degrees? The Advanced Technology 
program interacts and meshes together the private sector with the 
public sector. It is one of the most viable programs that allows us to 
advance technology so that our children will have jobs. Why is America 
putting its head in the sand while its international competitors are 
investing in technology?
  Mr. Speaker, I truly believe this bill is trying to fix what is not 
broken. We need cops on the beat, we need legal services so that poor 
people can be equalized with others in this Nation, and I do not know 
about you, but I want my young people working in the 21st century. I 
want the Advanced Technology Program to be successfully matching the 
public and private partnership so that we can be at the cutting edge of 
technology for the 21st century.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, crime legislation is not normally very exciting. The 
process of protecting our citizens and seeing that those that 
perpetrate crimes on our citizens, that take lives, that take property 
and we put those people away and take them from society is normally not 
an exciting process.
  But this is exciting legislation because for the very first time we 
have a piece of legislation here that is supported by the broad range 
of municipal and county officials from both parties, and independent 
nonpartisan officials all across this country. The National League of 
Cities, not a Republican, not a Democrat, not a partisan organization 
supports this approach because it gives their members, their officials, 
their mayors, their council men and women, their county officials, the 
power, the flexibility to put the resources where they need them in 
their communities and that is an exciting prospect because it works. It 
works because the decision-making is in the hands of the decision-
makers in the communities, not up in Washington.
  It will also, Mr. Speaker, result in more police officers on the 
streets in our communities, and that is exciting news.

                              {time}  1615

  We have heard very little from the President recently about the 
100,000 cops on the streets. We hear a lot about 20,000 troops in 
Bosnia. The reason that we do not hear so much about those police 
officers on the street is because they are not getting there. This 
legislation will put them there, and I would hope that Members on both 
sides of the aisle will see that providing the flexibility and the 
power over the decisions ought to be and will be under this 
legislation, which I support and which I urge adoption, that this 
legislation will result in more police officers on the street, more and 
better resources being placed in the hands of our local officials from 
all parties and nonpartisan, across this country.
  I strongly urge us to put aside partisanship. It is not so much that 
the current system is broken and why fix it. Let us make it better. 
That is what we are trying to do here is pass better legislation and 
make the system work better to protect our citizens.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
because of the fact that this conference committee report guts the COPS 
program. In listening to the arguments of the other side of the aisle, 
I just cannot believe it, as a former prosecutor.
  When this bill was passed in the last Congress it had bipartisan 
support, bipartisan support. But then the new majority came in and had 
to make some adjustments to it because they wanted to appear to be 
changing the crime bill. What did they do? They gut the COPS program.
  This program is an extremely effective way to fight crime. In fact, 
it is the cutting edge, cutting edge of how you rebuild neighborhoods 
and fight crime in neighborhoods.
  I hear talk about the county commissioners can decide how to fight 
crime. County commissioners are not necessarily experts on the latest 
techniques in fighting crime. The politicians in cities, they will know 
how to spend the money. This crime bill is the result of an attorney 
general who had ability in the front lines in the fight against crime, 
and with police chiefs across America who used statistical data about 
how you win the war against crime. That is where it came from.
  In a short period of time, 25,000 to 26,000 police officers are 
already on the streets, and now I hear some of my colleagues on the 
other side say it really will not work, we just instinctively know it.
  In Lowell, MA, we have a community policing program going, and I 
asked the police chief to provide statistics of what happened since 
this program was started. Burglaries in residential areas, community 
policing 1 year, down 34 percent; burglaries in business areas down 41 
percent; larcenies down 23 percent; car theft down 20 percent. That is 
what is happening in communities all across America, and they want to 
tamper with the crime bill that is working, for pure politics.

[[Page H 14085]]

  Law enforcement and fighting crime is not a political issue. We ought 
to be working together to implement this crime bill. It is the 
smartest, most effective crime bill that this country has ever passed.
  We are playing games at the last minute because it might give the 
President some credit on fighting crime. Do the right thing. Vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and also of 
the conference report which underlies it.
  I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for the work that he has done, 
his staff, and the others that worked on this legislation.
  We have been advised by the administration that this is likely a 
candidate for veto. The reasons given are the Cops on the Beat program, 
the advanced technology program, and the funding levels for 
peacekeeping.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that this is a responsible, a fiscally 
responsible piece of legislation. Let me just highlight some of the 
things in here that I think make this appropriation bill worthwhile, 
this conference report.
  First is the important funds it does provide for law enforcement, in 
law enforcement grants, to States, nearly $2 billion to State and local 
law enforcement agencies, giving some flexibility. No, it does not 
force the Cops on the Beat program. It does not put us in the mind set 
of saying it has to be this kind of program. But if that is the program 
the States and local government want to continue, they can continue 
this with the grants program. They have the flexibility to do the kinds 
of programs that they think are best.
  For my State and many others, there is a large amount of funds in 
here to provide for reimbursing States for incarcerating illegal 
aliens. That is a responsibility of the Federal Government, a failure 
of the Federal Government to enforce immigration laws, and States 
should be reimbursed for incarceration of illegal aliens in their State 
and local prisons and jails.
  There is funding for 1,000 new border agents so we can control our 
borders. There is 400 new land inspectors for the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service in here that helps to facilitate the flow of 
legitimate goods and services and of individuals across the border. 
There are important restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation. We 
begin the process of phasing out the Federal funding for that program 
and returning this responsibility to States and local governments.
  There is important funding for the International Trade Commission, 
and one that does not get a lot of attention, the State Department, 
which I think is a vital part of our diplomatic service and our foreign 
policy. The State Department does not get a lot of attention around 
this place, but it is vitally important.
  I just had the privilege this weekend of taking a trip to Bosnia, to 
Serbia, to Croatia. I have seen the dedicated service our foreign 
service people give overseas. They are a vital link in our foreign 
policy. They also provide vital services for Americans overseas. This 
bill goes a long way to providing the adequate funding so that they can 
continue those vital services. No, it is not as much as anybody would 
like. But I think it is an important step to making sure that our 
diplomatic functions and our foreign policy is carried out.
  This is a responsible bill. It has the right spending priorities. It 
gives the direction that this Congress should give to States and local 
governments to provide the flexibility to carry out the law enforcement 
programs, to provide for the Commerce Department, the vital functions 
that Commerce now does, and to make sure we have our foreign policy 
intact through the funding of the State Department.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this rule and on the conference report.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr.Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, you know, block grant, 
block grant, block grant, block grant. It almost seems like it is a 
hari krishna chant coming out of the Republican Party. Sometimes what I 
think we ought to do is give you your way, block grant the blockheads 
and send you all back to the States.
  I look at what is happening in our country today. I look at the kinds 
of priorities. This bill demonstrates so clearly the difference between 
the Democratic priorities and the Republican priorities.
  What we are saying in this bill is we want to cut the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency by about 35 percent, we want to gut peacekeeping 
around the world by 57 percent, we want to do these things, and at the 
same time we want to increase spending on our prisons. Everybody is for 
spending on prisons. That is fine. But if we really want to fight 
crime, then we have got to provide the tools to get crime fought at the 
local level. It means you have to hire more cops.
  If we really want to deal with how we are going to create jobs in 
this country, then anyone that has followed the advanced technologies 
that have been developed in the United States, whether it is television 
sets or VCR's, we spend billions of dollars in this country 
appropriating money to our labs, appropriating money to our 
universities, to come up with a vast array of significant scientific 
breakthroughs.
  What happens then is we hand it over to the Germans or Japanese or 
French or somebody else who build all the things. The jobs go overseas. 
We end up with nothing but the bill for the technology we have created.
  The advanced technology program provides that technology so that we 
can actually convert the technology into jobs for the American people.
  We have the GPS system, the global positioning system, which has 
created tens of thousands of jobs all across this country. It is the 
exact kind of program where scientific breakthroughs take place. We 
create jobs here in the United States for the people of this country, 
advancing not only our technologies but advancing the actual salaries 
of the people that get those jobs. That is the kind of jobs program we 
need in this country, that is the kind of jobs that the American people 
are demanding, and that is the kind of jobs that we are not seeing 
created as a result of the bizarre priorities that are being put forth 
by the Republican Party.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The last speaker on the Republican side from Arizona, the Fifth 
District, they are putting 61 police officers at risk, 85 pending cops 
applications at risk. And they are saying State and local governments 
do not know what they are talking. But yet they are applying for this 
program.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let us not just leave the 
period at the advanced technologies program. Let us recognize that in 
this bill we are going to eliminate the U.S. Travel and Tourism 
Administration. We are going to cut 15 percent from the Economic 
Development Administration. We are going to cut 36 percent from the 
Small Business Administration. And we are going to cut 44 percent from 
the National Telecommunications.
  You are clapping, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
because you think those are all wonderful programs to cut. The truth of 
the matter is if you want good jobs for the people of this country 
instead of the kind of low-level jobs that the Republicans are so 
advanced and so great at creating for ordinary working people, they we 
need to have these kinds of programs to make certain we advance those 
technologies here in this country.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Yes, we have to clap, because it is so deadly serious that we have to 
do something about the deficit, and I would just say to you: Where can 
we slow down spending? We have to do it everywhere we possibly can, I 
say to the gentleman from Massachusetts 

[[Page H 14086]]
[Mr. Kennedy], for your kids and for your grandkids and great 
grandkids. Otherwise, this country is going down the drain. Stick to 
the balanced budget. It is the biggest problem facing this Nation 
today.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time.
  I would just point out, you are providing a $270 billion tax cut 
while you are claiming you are for a balanced budget, when you are 
dumping $7 billion into our national defense budget.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, $500 in the pocket of my 
constituents is better than $500 in the pocket of this Congress.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Come on, you are saying you are for a 
balanced budget at the same time you are for a tax cut. Come on, be 
honest with the American people.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to talk for a minute or two about this block grant approach 
because my colleagues should know that running between the States of 
North Carolina and South Carolina is a wonderful lake, and the last 
time we had a block grant program, the legal block grant program that 
was implemented under the Nixon administration, one of the law 
enforcement officials in South Carolina went out and bought a nice 
yacht and put it on this lake to use for what he said was crime 
fighting purposes. I think that was the impetus that led to doing away 
with the last round of block grant programs.
  Now, my colleagues are back with these block grant programs, and they 
say it is the thing of the future and we are going to control them 
going into the future. But there is nothing in this bill that is going 
to stop people from buying yachts and tanks and all of these airplanes, 
like they did under the last block grant program.
  The second point I want to make is my colleagues are going to tell us 
that they are returning all of this discretion back to the local 
governments so they can buy these yachts, but I will tell my colleagues 
that this bill does not return discretion to the local government. What 
it does is reward States that have incarcerated the most people over 
the last 3 years. There is a provision here that says, and I quote it, 
verbatim,

       We are going to give grants to States only that have 
     increased the percentage of persons convicted of violent 
     crimes over the last 3 years; those who have increased the 
     average prison time over the last 3 years.

  Well, we are operating, according to a recent newspaper article, the 
biggest expansion industry in the world is the United States prison 
system already, and now we are trying to reward people for putting more 
people in jail rather than coming into line with other civilized 
countries in the world.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I cannot sit here and let the gentleman from Michigan get by with 
saying that the Cops on the Beat grants that have already been made 
will be jeopardized. They will not be jeopardized. These grants have 
already been made. They are out there.
  What is being jeopardized, the gentleman should know, is, after 3 
more years, all of the COPS grants will be gone. Those communities who 
now have received moneys will have to pay the entire cost of their 
cops.
  Under our program, they will still be going. The communities only 
have to pay 10 percent from here on. We pay 90 percent from here on 
out. If you want to have just cops, wonderful. If your police need 
bullet-proof vests, under our program they can get them. Under yours, 
they cannot. If cops need bullets or equipment, they will be able to do 
it under our program.
  Let the decision be made not in Washington by a bureaucrat, but by 
your police chief. If you cannot trust him, that is your problem, not 
ours.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, to answer the gentleman from Kentucky, the 
Fifth District, it was his 25 police agencies that applied for the COPS 
program and have been awarded that program. It was not Washington 
telling him to make it. And if he wrote this bill, then he knows 
nowhere in your bill do you even guarantee one police officer being 
hired. We have 100,000 guaranteed. Nowhere in your bill does it say 
your 90/10 provision goes for more than 1 year. We did it for 3 years.
  You want technology, bullet-proof vests? COPS more program, equipment 
technology, civilian employees, all come underneath there. Everything 
you want is in the COPS program. Just give it some time. Stop playing 
politics with it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to 
this conference report and to voice my outrage over the mindless 
assault that is being launched against the Legal Services Corporation.
  The Republican proposal guts Legal Services. Funds will be lost by 31 
percent and LSC attorneys handcuffed. This action will deny the poor 
access to justice, a right guaranteed under our great Constitution.
  Many of our colleagues argue we cannot afford programs like the Legal 
Services Corporation in this time of fiscal constraints. I challenge 
them, how can we not?
  My colleagues, the poor should not be the ones that pay the price for 
balancing the budget. But that is exactly what will happen if the Legal 
Services Corporation is so drastically cut.
  I urge you to support the efforts of LSC. Our democracy succeeds only 
when all of our citizens have full access to our legal system.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, buried on page 127 of this conference 
report is language designed to reopen the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 
1988. This language was not considered by the House and it was not 
considered by the Senate, rather it was added by the conferees.
  The language on page 127 would have the Federal Government spend 
taxpayer dollars to develop a demonstration project on the deep ocean 
isolation of waste, which is a fancy way of saying ocean dumping. This 
type of study has already been rejected by the Commerce Department, 
also by the Naval Research Lab. As an environmentalist and as a member 
of the Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, I am 
outraged over these efforts to go behind the backs of our subcommittee 
and the American people to reopen the issue of ocean dumping.
  Ocean dumping under current law is illegal. It is irresponsible and 
wrong to use taxpayer money to fund experiences into ocean dumping of 
any kind of waste. I would ask my colleagues, let us not threaten the 
health of our citizens again and the environment just to please some 
corporate special interests. This is a technology that has been 
rejected by the government agencies. It is only because some corporate 
interest decided to spend some money on it that it now appears in this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is totally inappropriate when neither House, 
neither appropriations committee considered this language, none of the 
authorizing committees considered this language, even though there is a 
bill pending before our subcommittee, and yet now we find it in the 
conference report. We should vote against the rule just for that reason 
alone.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that it is my understanding that all time has expired on the other 
side, and we only have one speaker left on this side. As he goes up to 
the well, I am sure that he will remind us that this is a debate on the 
rule. I have not heard 

[[Page H 14087]]
any debate on the rule, but we have heard a lot of debate on a lot of 
other subjects.
  I am sure my distinguished colleague from greater San Dimas, CA, the 
vice chairman of the committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier, the honorable Mr. 
Dreier, will be able to use the time well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would 
like to remind him that this is, in fact, the debate on the rule.
  Now, having said that, let me say that I believe this is an 
extraordinarily good conference report. It goes a long way towards 
dealing with the goals that the American people set forth in the 
election of November 1994. We have heard people on the other side of 
the aisle talking about the opportunity and the future of children in 
this country. This bill, that has been put into place here by the great 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], 
has, I believe, made a major step towards reducing our deficit, in that 
it is $700 million below the level of last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that as we look at that kind of fiscal 
responsibility, it is very, very important to face the fact that an 
appropriations bill is actually reducing the level of spending and, at 
the same time, meeting very important priorities. One of the most 
important, from my perspective, is the fact that the Federal Government 
heretofore has not stood up and acknowledged its responsibility for a 
very important problem, that being illegal immigration.
  This bill alone deals with two of the three very important prongs 
that we have been using in legislation over the past several months to 
address the problem of illegal immigration, and by that I am talking 
about reimbursement to the States for the incarceration of those who 
have entered this country illegally. And, also, it is very important 
for us to realize that toughening up our border patrol is key. There is 
$300 million in this bill that will go directly, directly towards 
hiring an additional 1,000 border patrol officers so that we will be 
able to again have the Federal Government acknowledging its 
responsibility.
  The other very important part of that issue is not in this bill, but 
it is part of our Republican agenda here, and we are, frankly, doing it 
in a bipartisan way, and that is eliminating the mandates that have 
been imposed on the States to deal with issues like that.
  So I want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
for the superb job that he has done on this very difficult bill, for 
meeting those priorities, and, at the same time, reducing the level of 
expenditures. I also want to congratulate my friend, the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss] for reminding me this is, in fact, the debate on 
the rule. It is a good bill, and I hope we can vote for it and then 
move on to the conference report.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 289, I call up 
the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXVIII and House Resolution 
289, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Monday, December 4, 1995, at page H13874.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and 
the gentleman from West Virginia, [Mr. Mollohan] will each be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 2076 and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to bring to the floor this conference 
report. When this bill passed the House on July 26, I described it as 
being tough on crime and even tougher on spending. The conference 
report we bring to the House today is, if anything, even tougher on 
crime and even tougher on spending.
  Overall, the conference report provides $27.3 billion, $315 million 
below the House-passed level. There is $315 million less in spending 
than when this bill left the House. The bill includes $22.8 billion in 
discretionary spending, $300 million below the House-passed level; it 
is $700 million below last year, even after rescissions; and $3.7 
million below what the White House requested.
  The bill also includes $3.95 billion in the violent crime reduction 
trust fund. That is $1.6 billion above last year.
  In general, the conference report is similar to the bill that passed 
the House on July 26. The major changes from the House-passed bill are: 
First, funding for law enforcement is $200 million above the House 
level; second, it is offset by rescissions of prior year funding 
totaling minus $200 million; and third, there is a decrease in State/
USIA funding, $370 million below the House level due to a lower 602(b) 
allocation.
  Overall, for law enforcement programs, the conference report includes 
$14.6 billion, which is a 19-percent increase over 1995. More than half 
of the funding in this bill is for our No. 1 domestic priority, to 
fight crime and drugs and control illegal immigration. More than half.
  The $3.95 billion in crime trust funds provides major new initiatives 
to help States and local authorities fight crime. This includes $1.9 
billion for the local law enforcement block grants, much discussed here 
in this body, passed by the House in February as a part of the Contract 
With America, to give cities and towns the resources they need to fight 
crime as they see fit to do it--to do what they deem wise, not what we 
in Washington deem wise for them.
  The major difference between this block grant and the COPS Program is 
not whether there will be more police on the Streets. Both programs put 
more cops on the streets. The difference is about control, whether we 
want a Washington-knows-best cookie cutter program or a local 
empowerment program. This conference report chooses local control.

  There is $671 million for the new State prison grant program, based 
on truth-in-sentencing, which rewards those States that keep prisoners 
locked up for 85 percent of their sentences. We will give them the 
money to build the prisons to put those violent criminals behind bars 
for most of the time a jury sentences them to.
  We put $535 million for Byrne grants for locals to use to fight 
against crime.
  For the first time, Mr. Speaker, we are funding $175 million to help 
with the fight against violence against women; $50 million above the 
House level and the full amount of the President's request.
  I cannot believe the President says he wants to veto a bill that 
funds violence against women grants to the exact penny he requested of 
us. More than 100 Members of Congress have written in favor of that 
program on both sides of the aisle. If Members vote against this 
conference report or if the President vetoes this bill, they will be 
voting and fighting against funding for these programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report carries two legislative provisions 
added by the Senate. The authorization for that truth-in-sentencing 
prison grant program and a provision to stop abusive, frivolous and 
expensive lawsuits by prisoners in jail.
  The conference report continues the House bill's emphasis on 
enforcing our immigration laws. It includes a $300 

[[Page H 14088]]
million increase over 1995 for the immigration service to hire 3,000 
new personnel, including 1,000 new and redeployed border patrol agents 
on the border to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

                              {time}  1645

  And, we are reimbursing States for the costs of jailing criminal 
aliens who commit crimes in their States. This is of major importance 
to the States of California, Texas, New York, and Florida especially. 
And if the President should veto this bill, he is saying to the people 
of California and to the people of Texas and to the people of Florida 
and New York, ``We don't care about your expenses. You go ahead and pay 
the bills for these people who are breaking our boundaries and 
committing crimes in your States. We are not going to pay you.'' That 
is what he is saying when he vetoes this bill.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this report provides increases of $571 
million over 1995 for Federal law enforcement, the FBI, the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, U.S. attorneys, and Federal prisons, to 
sustain the current personnel and to provide enhancements to help them 
do their job.
  Overall, this is the toughest anticrime, antidrug legislation this 
Congress has ever produced. But as tough as the bill is on crime, it is 
even tougher on spending reductions in lower priority areas.
  The Department of Commerce is funded at $3.4 billion, a reduction of 
15 percent and below the House-passed level.
  The conference report funds manufacturing extension centers at $80 
million, but doesn't fund Advanced Technology Program.
  There are significant reductions throughout Commerce, including: EDA, 
down 21 percent to $348 million; MBDA, down 27 percent to $32 million; 
and Department Administration, down 20 percent to $29 million.
  NOAA is funded at $1.8 billion, $58 million below 1995.
  The conference report includes a provision requiring funding to 
reflect Commerce Department reorganization, upon enactment of that 
legislation.
  We conform in this report international spending to budget realities, 
reducing the State, USIA, and Arms Control accounts from $5.7 to $4.8 
billion, a 15-percent decrease below last year, while preserving their 
core functions. And we zero out the agency of the United Nations called 
UNIDO, an agency that the administration the other day said the United 
States would withdraw from; a good thing because we are not going to 
give them any money for it. It is zero in this bill.
  We keep the House funding level for Legal Services at $278 million 
compared to the Senate's $340 million, but we restrict those funds so 
they are not abused by that agency. We reduce funding for the SBA by 35 
percent.
  We prohibit expansion of the Vietnam Embassy construction unless the 
President certifies that Vietnam is fully cooperating on MIA-POW 
issues.
  Those are some of the highlights of the bill, Mr. Speaker.
  We have no choice but to move forward. The administration has refused 
to confer with us for these months and all of this year on what they 
want in the bill. They simply sit back and say we are going to veto it 
unless we get our way on COPS. They are sort of in a pique about that 
one. It is a political thing. It is sort of, I guess, his version of 
getting off Air Force One last. I wish he would get over this pique and 
get on with the business of legislating and protecting our country 
against crime and drugs. That is what this bill is all about.
  So I urge all Members who care about issues in this bill, from 
violence against women programs to small business assistance, to help 
move this process forward and pass this conference report.
  I want to thank 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], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon], the full committee chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and especially the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], a friend and colleague, a 
tremendous advocate, and a great assist to me on this bill.
  I want to thank staff, Jim Kulikowski, our chief of staff, Sally 
Chadbourne, Theresa McAuliffe, Kim Wolterstorff, Mac Coffield, Jennifer 
Miller, and on the minority side, Mark Murray, Liz Whyte, and Sally 
Gaines, for long, long and hard dedicated work.

[[Page H 14089]]
TH06DE95.000



[[Page H 14090]]
TH06DE95.001



[[Page H 14091]]
TH06DE95.002



[[Page H 14092]]
TH06DE95.003



[[Page H 14093]]
TH06DE95.004



[[Page H 14094]]
TH06DE95.005



[[Page H 14095]]
TH06DE95.006



[[Page H 14096]]
TH06DE95.007



[[Page H 14097]]
TH06DE95.008



[[Page H 14098]]

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today with the chairman of our 
subcommittee to present the conference report on H.R. 2076, the 
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies 
appropriation bill. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman 
from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for the open and interactive way in 
which he has allowed us to deal with this legislation in this 
bipartisan way. I want to congratulate him on his first conference 
report, and his efforts in bringing it to the floor. I would like to 
think that I could congratulate him in the sense that we are going to 
be all done, but I do not think that is the case. I think we will be 
seeing this bill again after a Presidential veto.
  Mr. Speaker, in many respects this is a good bill, and I support the 
lion's share of it. It is below the total level of discretionary 
spending provided last year. That was a goal that I think everybody 
embraced. Law enforcement funding, Mr. Speaker, is a very important 
part of this bill, as the chairman said. Funding for Federal law 
enforcement activities and for Federal support of State and local law 
enforcement has been significantly increased.
  The Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, receives $2.4 billion in 
excess of last year's funding, with the Violent Crime Trust Fund being 
increased by over $1.5 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, this robust funding for law enforcement includes money 
for 200 new FBI positions, plus significant amounts of money for new 
equipment and facilities and for support of these new positions. It 
includes funding for 30 new Drug Enforcement Administration agents, 
with new equipment and mobile enforcement teams to support those 
important new hires.
  Mr. Speaker, amazingly, this legislation provides for a total of 
3,000, let me repeat that for my colleagues and anyone who is 
listening, for 3,000 new positions at the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, including 800 new border patrol agents and 400 
new inspectors, and corresponding support personnel.
  Mr. Speaker, in the law enforcement area this bill provides $175 
million, full funding, as the chairman indicated, for the Violence 
Against Women Act programs, and it includes $535 million for the Byrne 
Grant Program, a very popular, very effective, local law enforcement 
grant program.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is adequate in my view in other areas. The 
Economic Development Administration is funded at the House level, and I 
think it is appropriate at this time to give special recognition to our 
chairman. In representing his district from Kentucky, and I my district 
from West Virginia, we appreciate how important the Economic 
Development Administration is to areas that are experiencing economic 
hardship. That agency has reached out and is broadening its portfolio 
and addressing the concerns of economically distressed areas as a 
result of military spending displacements.
  NOAA is funded, Mr. Speaker, at $80 million above the House level. I 
consider that to be a good thing. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, several 
departments and agencies are severely underfunded in this bill. The 
committee's allocation in my view is as much as $500 million short. In 
fact, virtually every other part of this bill has been reduced from 
last year.
  The Department of Commerce's funding level of $3.4 billion is $600 
million less than last year. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, in my view, this 
conference agreement zeros out the highly effective Advanced Technology 
Program. It is tragic from the standpoint that I think substantively 
the ATP program is extremely important to our strategic activities to 
be competitive economically into the future as we compete with the 
world's economy. But also, Mr. Speaker, I think we should point out in 
this bill that zero funding the ATP program makes us renege on grants 
that we have already granted to some 400 companies. I do not think that 
action speaks very well.
  The State Department and its related agencies are reduced by $800 
million below last year. That is too low. We are advised they are going 
to limp along with that. That cannot continue--that kind of treatment 
of the State Department. And many other related agencies, such as the 
Legal Services Corporation, are reduced dramatically. Peacekeeping 
functions, Mr. Speaker, are so underfunded, almost ignored, that we 
expect to be dealing with a $1 billion plus deficit next year to meet 
our international peacekeeping obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, many of these underfunded or zeroed out programs are 
extremely important parts of President Clinton's economic 
revitalization initiatives or his foreign policy initiatives, or simply 
our commitments to ensure that the disadvantaged receive legal 
services. It is clear from the President's statements that any or all 
of them may cause him to veto this bill.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the President is committed to veto this bill 
because funding of the COPS program as a block grant program 
jeopardizes the 26,000 cops already on the beat. But, more importantly, 
and probably because we will get beyond that jeopardy, it makes 
impossible his commitment, a very fundamental part of his campaign and 
a very fundamental part of his law enforcement crime fighting 
initiative, to achieve the goal of putting 100,000 new police officers 
on the beat by the end of fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a program that is working, and it need not be 
fixed simply because it was not invented by the majority. It was 
President Clinton's program. The first year, from last year's 1995 
fiscal year funding, we have put almost 26,000 new policemen on the 
beat. The first year met 25 percent of the goal. In the second year, 
the lowest estimates and projections are that we will put another 
24,000 or 25,000 policemen on the beat if we get funding for the COPS 
program. That is 50,000 new policemen on the beat in the first 2 years 
of a 6-year program where the President promised to have 100,000 by the 
end of the century. We are far ahead of schedule on this program. There 
is no legitimate criticism of the so-called COPS program. In my mind 
the block granting of this program is an effort to undermine a program 
that is already working.
  The President has indicated, Mr. Speaker, that this item is 
nonnegotiable, and I expect it to be the subject of the motion of 
recommit on this conference report.
  In addition, because the bill enacts by reference certain provisions 
of H.R. 728, the formula for States to receive the block grant funds 
provided in this bill is heavily skewed toward those States with high 
populations and high crime rates. Smaller States, rural areas that are 
getting the job done, are disadvantaged in this bill.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains 31 pages of legislation in a 
bill that only has 78 pages in total. The issues addressed by these 
three legislative proposals are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
the Judiciary. These items include a major legislative rewrite of the 
Truth in Sentencing initiative grants, prison litigation reform and 
Legal Services Corporation. All these provisions amend current law and 
have impacts that are not clearly defined, despite the claims of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The reasons they have ended up in this 
appropriations bill are unclear to me, because as far as I know, we 
still have a Committee on the Judiciary with an especially competent 
chairman and ranking member, and I see no reason why an appropriations 
bill should contain such extensive authorizing language.
  Members may in fact be surprised by the impacts some of this language 
will have on the distribution of prison grant funds for their States. 
Preliminary information, for instance, from the Justice Department, 
indicates that some States that are currently eligible for prison 
grants will not be eligible for Truth In Sentencing incentive grants. 
While some of these States may become eligible for general prison grant 
funds, the amount of the funds available for this purpose has been 
reduced substantially from what it could have been under current law.
  Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that 
in a bill as large and diverse as this one, there will always be things 
that we agree with and things that we do not. We all know it will be 
vetoed. I intend to work closely with the gentleman 

[[Page H 14099]]
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman, when that time comes, to 
adjust the things that need to be adjusted to get a signable bill. I 
believe that is his desire. It is certainly mine. We must advance the 
process here today and get closer to that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full 
committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for yielding and I congratulate him and the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking member, for 
doing an outstanding job on a difficult bill with limited resources.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a tough bill, but it is a good bill. It is one 
that I feel very comfortable in voting for and urging my colleagues to 
support, and I hope that all of us certainly on this side can support 
the bill, so we can send it to the President.
  If he wants to veto it, that is his judgment and he will exercise it 
and we will go from there. But the fact is, with the resources 
available, this is a good bill. We should take comfort in sending it to 
him.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say briefly on the COPS issue, that is a 
limited, centralized, big government, big bureaucracy program that does 
not have the flexibility to the policeman on the beat. That does not 
get to the inner cities that really need flexibility and funds to fight 
the very heavy law enforcement problems that they have.
  So, I would urge approval of this bill, which includes a significant 
block grant for law enforcement and gives those communities 
flexibility. That is not just me speaking; that is the Washington Post 
of Thursday, September 21, 1995, that I will include for the Record 
which, indeed, says that local authorities should have more choice and 
that the plan included in this bill is the preferable one.
  That being said, there are some Members who have raised objections 
earlier under discussion of the rule about a provision in the statement 
of managers that was alleged to allow ocean dumping. There was a ``Dear 
Colleague'' submitted by a gentleman from New Jersey that alleges that, 
and I just want to say that that ``Dear Colleague'' is wrong. This 
conference report does not allow ocean dumping; the conference report 
does not fund any ocean dumping; and it does not change any ocean 
dumping laws.
  The conference report does ask NOAA, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, to report to Congress on its analysis of 
possible technology and feasibility of deep ocean relocation of dredge 
soil that already exists in our Nation's harbors, and it would ask NOAA 
to report to Congress as to what the legal consequences are, and what 
are the options, if any, that Congress can explore for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, that being said, that is what the language says. But 
there are Members from New Jersey and Massachusetts and elsewhere who 
have legitimate concerns about just this language.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Saxton] to express his concerns and have an opportunity to reply 
to him.
  Mr. SAXON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, under the 
section entitled National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on 
page 127, there appears a paragraph entitled, ``Deep Ocean Isolation 
Study,'' and it says, in part,

       The conferees have been made aware that an innovative deep 
     ocean waste handling and disposal system exists.

  Later on it says that:

       The conferees expect NOAA to evaluate this proposal and 
     develop a funding program for engineering analysis and 
     preliminary design work on systems to transport dredge spoils 
     to a deposit site, transfer the material to a receiving 
     platform, and deploy a tethered delivery system for safe 
     conduct of deep ocean isolation.

  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman is prepared to speak on 
this issue to clarify this situation.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am prepared to 
speak, but before I do that, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], specifically because our oceans are very 
complex ecosystems. Also, this tethered delivery system that is 
referenced to has already been studied by the Navy, and the Navy has 
determined that it is likely to fail.
  Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Louisiana that there will be no ocean dumping at all, nothing 
authorized under this language.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to both gentlemen, I believe 
that this language clearly requires that NOAA only evaluate and develop 
a cost estimate for testing of this new technology, not to carry out a 
demonstration at this time. I am prepared to direct NOAA not to proceed 
with this evaluation until the concerns of the gentlemen, as well as 
any other Members who have similar concerns, have been satisfied as 
expressed in authorization language by the Fisheries, Wildlife and 
Ocean Subcommittee of the Committee on Resources. The subcommittee is 
chaired by the gentleman from New Jersey. And if that language is 
acceptable, if that colloquy is acceptable to both gentlemen, I would 
hope that they would support the bill and I would urge all of our 
colleagues to support the bill accordingly. Is that acceptable?
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
that having been said, as far as this gentleman is concerned, that 
language is acceptable and I am prepared to support the bill with that 
assurance.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. If the gentleman would yield, the language is 
acceptable as well, and I will support the bill on that basis.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlemen and urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 21, 1995]

                      More Police or More Choices

       The Republicans are out to undo portions of the crime bill 
     passed last year, particularly that part of the law that 
     provides money to put 100,000 new community police on the 
     streets. They would convert that program into law enforcement 
     block grants without the mandate that the money be used to 
     hire new officers. The current vehicle for this effort is the 
     State, Justice and Commerce appropriations bill, which the 
     Senate is expected to consider this week. President Clinton 
     is determined to defend the police program because he views 
     it as a major achievement of his administration. Setting 
     aside this political consideration, though, preserving the 
     form in which this assistance is given may not be worth a 
     fight.
       Protecting the public from violent crime has traditionally 
     been a local responsibility, although, of course, federal 
     funds have always been welcome. In the prosperous and 
     innovative years of the Great Society, grants were made to 
     state and local governments for law enforcement assistance, 
     and broad discretion was given to the recipients in deciding 
     how to use them. There were some abuses--scholarships for 
     family members, purchases of high-tech equipment of dubious 
     value--but much was achieved before the grant program was 
     discontinued in the early '80s. Now the Democrats are 
     reluctant to trust local authorities with real 
     responsibility, so they set aside billions in the crime bill 
     but mandated that the money be used only to hire officers for 
     community policing.
       There's nothing wrong with community policing, and many 
     cities would be glad to spend federal dollars to implement 
     it. But others, including some large cities, already have 
     instituted community policing and need computers instead. 
     Some communities, such as Washington, don't need additional 
     police manpower at all but are short on funds to pay and 
     provide benefits to people already on the payroll. Finally, 
     as many cities have realized after a careful reading of the 
     law, the feds will pay only start-up costs of new hires. 
     Matching funds are provided at a diminishing rate for five 
     years, after which localities must pick up the full cost of 
     the new employees. Many communities simply can't afford to do 
     that.
       In light of the federal government's budget situation, this 
     may not be the time for Washington to be financing local 
     programs of this kind. But if funds are to be given, it makes 
     sense to provide communities more flexibility in planning and 
     spending. Because community policing has proved to be so 
     effective and so popular with the public, many areas will 
     spend the money as Washington intends. But if new 
     technologies, more cars or a social service unit trained to 
     deal with juveniles are needed more, why shouldn't 

[[Page H 14100]]
     local authorities have more choice? Word processors, a modernized 
     telephone system or better lab equipment may not have the 
     political appeal of 100,000 new cops. But for some cities, 
     they may be a much better deal.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that colloquy, and 
particularly what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] said. But 
I must warn that I am concerned that this very research program, which 
is in the report language, is the very thing that we are opposed to. In 
fact, if the research program goes ahead, which hopefully it will not 
based on what the gentleman from New Jersey just said, but if this 
research program were to go ahead, it is essentially openended. That 
would allow a significant amount of ocean dumping to take place of 
various contaminated materials.
  Mr. Speaker, this is why the Department of Commerce, in a letter to 
the chairman of the Committee on Resources on July 28 of this year, 
specifically said that they were opposed to this research project 
because it is openended; there is no guidance, and ultimately there 
would be ocean dumping taking place of various contaminated materials.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that the Naval Research 
Laboratory in a report issued this year in the early part of 1995, 
specifically said that this tethered container concept was analyzed and 
determined to be unacceptable from both the production rate capability 
and because of handling system problems.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to do this research. It has already 
been done and it has been found to be unacceptable.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], who is a very hard-working member of 
our subcommittee.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say this is a good bill. I 
think it recognizes, of course, the fiscal restraints that we are 
under. It is $700 million under 1995 in terms of discretionary 
spending.
  But as chairman of the Steel Caucus, I want to also point out that we 
have kept the funding up for the International Trade Administration. We 
are in a competitive environment worldwide with our products, including 
steel, and it is therefore very important that the ITA have full 
funding.
  We have been able to do that. It is almost at 1995 levels, and what 
this means is that the International Trade Administration will be able 
to very vigorously support our trade laws and make sure that none of 
our industries are subjected to unfair trading practices.
  With the GATT treaty in place the challenges to maintain a fair trade 
environment has become extremely important. The Commerce Department 
funding is down about $578 million, and many people say this Department 
perhaps is not necessary. However, the ITA has a very essential 
function, and I am pleased that we have been able to keep the funding 
level at 1995.
  The second important thing I would bring to the attention of my 
colleagues is the manufacturing extension program. Again, we have kept 
the funding level up. This is an agency that provides help to many 
small businesses. Some 14,000 of them in northern Ohio potentially 
benefit from this program, because this agency provides help to many 
small businesses and give them advice as to how to manage their 
accounting, how to manage in some cases the sales programs. They 
provide the kind of professional consulting that many times the small 
business does not have.
  So, these two features are important to the economy and jobs, and I 
am pleased that we could fund them at almost a 100 percent level.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon], a member of our subcommittee.
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report 
on H.R. 2076. I do so reluctantly because of my strong feeling that 
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rogers has sought to be fair and 
reasonable in the midst of a very difficult process. The fact is that 
the conference committee was unable to report a balanced bill--the 
allocation for Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary was just not 
sufficient to make that possible.
  There are provisions of this conference report that I strongly 
support. Five hundred million dollars is allocated to reimburse States 
and localities for the cost of incarcerating aliens convicted of a 
criminal offense. Obviously, these funds are vital to my State of 
California, as well as Los Angeles County, which bear an enormous 
burden of the costs of the Federal Government's inability to control 
illegal immigration. Increases in funding for the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service included in the legislation are essential to the 
Government's ability to control this problem.
  However, while the INS and law enforcement are well funded, there are 
serious problems with the allocation of funds for other components of 
the bill. Funding for programs within the Department of Commerce are 
dramatically reduced from fiscal year 1995. State Department activities 
are seriously underfunded, particularly as it relates to the United 
States commitment to international organizations and United Nation's 
peacekeeping activities.
  In addition to the underfunding of many valuable accounts, I have 
fundamental differences with the conference report over policy 
initiatives included in the legislation. The crime bill enacted by the 
103d Congress and signed by President Clinton balanced the needs of law 
enforcement with the needs of prevention. The Community Oriented 
Policing Services program [COPS] addressed the real fear of millions of 
Americans that there were insufficient numbers of law enforcement 
personnel on our streets. At the same time, the law authorized 
prevention activities aimed at reducing the prevalence of criminal 
activity among the Nation's youth.
  H.R. 2076 undermines this approach by ignoring enacted authorizations 
and creating a new law enforcement block grant. The COPS program has 
already been successful in providing 25,000 additional cops on the 
street. This block grant eliminates a program that is working; allows 
funds to be used for a variety of purposes--including equipment and 
infrastructure; and places prevention programs in the unenviable 
position of competing for the same funding as personnel and equipment.
  There are also small programs within the Justice Department which 
provide far greater benefits than their cost to the Federal Government. 
The Community Relations Service [CRS] is such a program. CRS provides 
valuable mediation, conflict resolution, and technical assistance 
services in the resolution of volatile racial disputes. Unfortunately, 
such dispute resolution activities remain essential in communities 
across the Nation and the small Federal investment in CRS' activities 
is well spent in prevention of more serious problems.
  The dispute resolution activities of CRS were funded at $10 million 
in fiscal year 1995. This year Americans have become acutely aware of 
the racial tensions which exist in this country. Yet this small 
investment--supported by law enforcement and the civil rights community 
alike--has been cut by almost 50 percent. As for conference report 
language supporting additional funding for CRS through transfer in the 
case of emergent circumstances, I can report that those emergent 
circumstances already exist in many parts of this country.
  The technology programs of the Department of Commerce are 
particularly hard hit by this bill. The Advanced Technology Program 
[ATP] has been eliminated. When all the smoke about industrial policy 
and picking winners and losers clears, what is it we have done in this 
bill? We have struck funding for a public-private partnership for the 
development of high-risk technologies with the potential for long-term 
economic benefits.
  Sharing the costs of high-risk research with the private sector, and 
allowing research and development that might not otherwise proceed, 
seems to me a wise investment in our economic future. At a time when 
job creation is increasingly dependent on small businesses, it is 
important to note that half 

[[Page H 14101]]
of ATP awards in the first 4 years of the program have been made to 
small businesses.
  The Commerce Department's information infrastructure grant program is 
cut by over 50 percent from last year's funding level of $45 million. 
These grants foster an essential public-private partnership to support 
the expansion of the information superhighway.
  As a result of where they live, income level, or educational 
attainment, millions of Americans now find the information age 
inaccessible. Perhaps nowhere is this problem as critical and the 
repercussions for the future as serious as in our educational system. 
Millions of children are being left behind as their higher-income 
counterparts avail themselves of the computer age, both at home and in 
schools where funding is available for information technology.
  USA Today recently reported that high school drop-out rates fell 
dramatically and absentee rates dropped in half when kids were given 
access to computers, CD-ROMS and other technology. While many decry the 
failure of our public school systems to teach our children, we have an 
opportunity with technology grants to do something significant in our 
schools and provide essential opportunities to poor and at-risk youth.
  Through matching grants to schools, libraries, State and local 
governments and non-profit organizations, information infrastructure 
grants can provide an invaluable catalyst to assure that we do not 
become a nation divided into information technology haves and have 
nots.
  Last Monday, the Washington Post featured an article highlighting the 
Minority Business Development Agency [MBDA] as an agency that is 
virtually privatized, was established under a Republican administration 
and has been credited with stimulating business growth around the 
country. Today we will pass a bill that reduces funding for the MBDA by 
27 percent--from $44 million to $32 million.
  Minorities continue to be significantly underrepresented in the 
business community. MBDA enhances business opportunities and expansion 
of existing minority enterprises by providing management and technical 
assistance and enhancing access to capital for minority entrepreneurs. 
It seems inconsistent--to say the least--that the majority would target 
a program such as MBDA, while seeking to replace the access to the 
economic marketplace afforded minority businesses through affirmative 
action with some yet to be defined ``empowerment agenda.''
  Finally, the conference report responds to the opponents of the Legal 
Services Corporation [LSC] by severely reducing funding for the LSC and 
placing tight restrictions on LSC grantee activities. LSC has done an 
exemplary job for over 30 years of providing access to the legal system 
for lower-income Americans.
  Unfortunately, the conference chose to acquiesce to opponents of LSC 
who use isolated and anecdotal claims to insist that the Corporation's 
main activity has been to pursue a political and social agenda. As a 
result, the ability of poor Americans to enjoy their rights to adequate 
legal representation will be eroded. It was not enough to address 
opponents concerns about LSC through implementation of restrictions on 
grantee activities; the conference report goes far beyond these 
concerns by reducing funding for the LSC by over 30 percent.
  As we continue to resolve appropriations matters, it is my hope we 
are able to deliberate on an alternative to this conference report that 
I can support. That will require that a more reasonable and adequate 
amount of funding be provided for the many essential functions of the 
federal government included in this measure.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLauro Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report. Specifically, I strongly oppose dismantling the community 
policing initiative. This is one crime fighting program that works, as 
the ranking member said earlier.
  This bill will not guarantee that even one new police officer would 
be put on the beat. The streets of my district are safer today because 
of community policing. Neighborhoods are safer because we put more 
police officers on the beat.
  The Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations made a comment before 
that said that this program does not work in inner-cities. That is 
wrong. It does work in inner-cities. In 1990, my hometown of New Haven, 
CT, an inner-city, had the unfortunate distinction of having the 
highest crime rate of any city in the State of Connecticut. Then police 
and community leaders came together and implemented a community 
policing program. Three years later, New Haven has a much prouder 
distinction, and that is of a crime-fighting innovator. Crime has been 
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.
  In my district, 41 new police officers are already on the job in 10 
municipalities as a result of the COPS initiative to put 100,000 new 
police officers on our Nation's streets.
  Mr. Speaker, the results are in. According to the FBI'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. In February of 1996, because of COPS grants, my district is 
expected to put an additional 20 police officers on the beat in New 
Haven.
  Make no mistake about it. A ``yes'' vote on this conference report 
today is a vote to take cops off of the streets. Vote ``no'' on this 
conference report. It is, in fact, wrong to end this program that has 
worked in our Nation's cities, inner-cities and rural communities.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker I rise in strong support of this bill. I rise 
in very strong support of the conference report. It cuts corporate 
welfare coming from the Commerce Department; it prevents U.S. soldiers 
from being ordered to serve under foreign operational command; it makes 
much needed cuts in foreign aid; it begins to crack down on illegal 
immigration; it prohibits Federal funding to provide Federal convicts 
with weight-lifting equipment and other counter-productive pursuits; it 
helps limit frivolous prison litigation; it sends a clear message to 
the courts that they had better stop wasting money on overly-lavish 
courtroom facilities; and it significantly improves upon last year's 
very flawed crime bill.
  The anti-crime block grants that will go to communities under this 
legislation are not bound up with the dictates, mandates, and 
restrictions that characterized last year's bill. I will tell you that 
the local officials in Cincinnati and Hamilton County are in a better 
position to judge how they can best spend anti-crime money than can 
Federal officials here in Washington. In fact, when Cincinnati was 
awarded a multi-million dollar grant last year under the old crime 
bill, my city found that it simply could not afford to accept the 
money--the Federal requirements were just too much. This bill provides 
local officials far more flexibility to spend the funds to meet the 
particular needs of the particular situations that they confront.
  Now, I've got to say, again, that I would have preferred to enhance 
the tax base of local communities by reducing the tax bite that 
Washington takes and simply not have any Federal crime grants at all. 
It's better to leave the money in the communities rather than running 
it through DC and then sending it back. But the approach that this bill 
takes represents a great improvement over the existing top-down system 
in which the feds micro-manage everything.
  I commend the committee and the conferees for their excellent work on 
these improvements, and I would like also to congratulate once again 
the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], and his absolutely tremendous staff, on the fine work that 
they have done to prove the way for the anti-crime provisions in this 
bill. I urge support for the conference report.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us to 
appropriate funds for the Commerce, Justice, 

[[Page H 14102]]
State Department, and related agencies. I commend my colleague, the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, 
and Judiciary, Chairman Rogers, for working through a very difficult 
conference to bring a reasonable conference agreement to the House 
floor.
  I also thank the chairman and the staff of the subcommittee and full 
committee for their cooperation in working with our Committee on 
International Relations.
  A key provision in the House passed bill has been retained in this 
conference report. The provision ties expansion of the United States 
mission in Vietnam to cooperation by the Government of the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam on resolving the remaining POW/MIA cases. This 
addresses concerns that the President lifted the trade embargo on 
Vietnam in February 1994 and established full diplomatic relations in 
July 1995 in the absence of any concrete results on cases that Vietnam 
should be able to provide.
  The conference report requires that before expanding the size of the 
United States mission in Hanoi, the President must certify that the 
Government of Vietnam is ``fully cooperating'' with the United States 
to account for our POW/MIA's. This includes turning over American 
remains and information on those still missing that we have every 
reason to believe is being held by the Vietnamese Government. I want to 
point out that this provision does not interfere with our diplomatic 
relations, but it does link expansion of the United States presence to 
specific cooperation by the Vietnamese. This provision reinforces the 
President's stated commitment to accounting for the 2,167 Americans 
still missing in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
  This provision seeks to achieve real progress by the Government of 
Vietnam in accounting for our missing Americans. My colleagues, this 
issue is not solely about remains, though an honorable burial is 
certainly deserved by those who gave their lives in service to our 
country. It is about the POW/MIA families' and our veterans' trust in 
their Government to seek and discover the truth.
  As we deploy 20,000 Americans to Bosnia, we must make every effort to 
assure them that if they are captured or become missing, the United 
States will make every effort to return them to their families and 
their Nation. It is crucial to our national honor that we, both in 
Congress and the executive branch, continue to press Vietnam to fully 
cooperate on our POW/MIA's.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us have grave concerns that the Vietnamese have 
been less than forthcoming on cases brought to their attention. The 
data shows that since the President lifted the trade embargo against 
Vietnam, only 10 cases have been accounted for.
  There is strong reason to believe, based on a November 1995 
Department of Defense analytical assessment of each POW/MIA case, that 
the Vietnamese still have remains and records on individuals which they 
have so far not turned over to the United States Government.
  This provision calls upon our Government to use all information 
available to account for our POW/MIA's. The intention is that ``all 
information'' include intelligence assessments, material evidence, 
incident information, and subsequent reporting, as well as the case-by-
case assessments in DOD's ``Zero-based Comprehensive Review of Cases 
Involving Unaccounted for Americans in Southeast Asia'' produced in 
November 1995. This document provides valuable information on 
individual cases, to include where and what kind of information DOD 
analysts believe the Government of Vietnam has in its possession. It 
should be used to prompt the Vietnamese to respond to those cases. This 
would include the special remains cases, photo cases, priority 
discrepancy cases--fate not determined; priority discrepancy cases--
death confirmed--Vietnam-Lao border cases, and priority discrepancy 
cases in areas of Laos and Cambodia where Vietnamese forces operated 
during the war.

  Several United States Defense Intelligence Agency assessments through 
1992 indicated that the Government of Vietnam likely holds hundreds of 
American remains that have not been repatriated to United States 
authorities. These analyses reinforce the recently released DOD case-
by-case assessments.
  Notably, the administration's fiscal year 1996 budget request for the 
State Department did not assume any expansion in Vietnam. Consequently 
it is my understanding that any expansion that might take place, if the 
President issues a certification, will require approval by Congress 
through the regular reprogramming process. As part of the review of any 
reprogramming request, the President's certification will be evaluated 
to determine whether the Government of Vietnam has exhausted all its 
unilateral efforts to cooperate fully with the United States in 
accounting for all discrepancy cases. We will assess Vietnam's 
cooperation to resolve the last known alive and remains discrepancy 
cases by the degree to which they meet the United States Government 
definition of accounting for our missing personnel which means locating 
and repatriating living Americans or their identifiable remains or 
providing convincing evidence as to why neither is possible.
  In addition, Congress will be looking for the Vietnamese Government 
to increase its cooperation on the remaining original status POW-MIA 
cases in terms of results achieved in meeting the above definition, 
including on incidents of loss in areas of Laos and Cambodia where 
Vietnamese forces operated at the time of the incident.
  We would expect if remains are not provided, then convincing evidence 
of why this is not possible should be provided by the Government of 
Vietnam from archival information, such as documents from the Central 
Committee of the Vietnamese Communist Party and reports of the Military 
Law Division of the Ministry of National Defense, including burial and 
photographic records of American casualties in Vietnam and in areas of 
Laos and Cambodia that were under Vietnamese control during the war.
  Full Vietnamese cooperation on POW-MIA related archival records and 
documents also includes provision of the source documents used by a 
single Vietnamese official to compile the handwritten Group 559 summary 
document provided to the United States in 1993.
  Many of my colleagues in the House and the Senate have worked for 
years on this issue yet we continue to hope that all the remaining 
cases will soon be resolved so that those most affected by the Vietnam 
war can end the uncertainty and frustration they have endured for so 
many years.
  Speaking on behalf of the families and our Nation's veterans, I thank 
Chairman Rogers for his outstanding efforts in finding a workable 
compromise on this provision. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference 
report.
  I think it is a bad bill for a number of reasons, but I would like to 
highlight just two aspects of the bill:
  I would like to go back to an earlier statement made on the floor by 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], which may have left the 
impression that money for the COPS Program was not being directed to 
the right places. In talking about the COPS Program, he stated that the 
city of Portland, OR, only was to receive one new police officer. Let 
me remind my colleagues that the whole purpose of the COPS Program was 
to target smaller communities, and those communities where the rate of 
crime is growing. The city of Portland, thankfully, is not experiencing 
such growth. But the surrounding suburban and rural areas are. In my 
district alone, the following communities received one new police 
officer: Astoria, Carlton, Clatskanie, Clatsop County Sheriff's Office, 
Cornelius, Dundee, Gearhart, Hillsboro, Newberg, North Plains, Rainier, 
Scappoose, Seaside, Sherwood, St. Helens, Tigard, Vernonia, Warrenton, 
and five in Yamhill County. Many of these communities are in Washington 
County, which is the heart of my district, and the fastest growing part 
of the State--19 new police in this county alone. These are the types 
of communities in Oregon which need the money the most and can afford 
it the least. So I would remind my colleagues that the success of the 
COPS Program is that it 

[[Page H 14103]]
puts the money where the money is most needed.
  This bill eliminates funding for the Advanced Technology Program in 
the Commerce Department. This program provides loans to businesses to 
develop commercial applications for new technologies. Let me tell you 
why elimination of this is pound wise and penny foolish.
  Over the past 50 years, innovation has been responsible for as much 
as half of the Nation's economic growth. Economic growth, of course, 
means more jobs and improved living standards. Combined public/private 
investment in research and development have resulted in millions of new 
jobs in biotechnology, communications, software, aerospace, and 
semiconductors.
  The American Association for the Advancement of Science estimates 
that under the Republican budget resolution, there will be a 30-percent 
cut in the Federal investment in nondefense R&D.
  Along with zeroing out funding for the Advanced Technology Program, 
funding in other bills will be drastically reduced for DOE's renewable 
energy R&D programs, and EPA's Environmental Technologies Initiative.
  These cuts are coming at a time when Japan plans to double its R&D 
Government dollars by the year 2000. They are doubling their commitment 
and we are cutting ours. What is wrong with this picture?
  I have repeatedly stated that while I am in favor of a balanced 
budget, but that it must be done with the right priorities in mind. Our 
balance the budget strategy should be based on an investment strategy--
where can we put limited Federal dollars where they will do the most 
good--where they will invest in our Nation's well being--create new, 
high paying jobs--which in turn creates a better future for our 
children.
  This appropriations bill does not get the priorities right, and I 
urge the defeat of this conference report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], who really has become quite an 
expert on these issues while bringing his law enforcement background to 
the debate.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding this 
time to me on this issue.
  As my colleagues know, back in the 103d Congress we put forth the 
COPS Program, and now we are here in the 104th Congress, and suddenly 
we want to block-grant this program. We have heard all the horrors of 
the block grants that have occurred in the past, the airplanes, the 
tanks, the yachts that have been purchased, and under our colleagues' 
block grant proposal not one police officer is guaranteed. There is a 
possibility, but there are no guarantees. No communities can look with 
confidence that they will receive a police officer.
  Mr. Speaker, they tell us they are going to do this because they want 
to leave it to the local units of government. Well, let me, if I may, 
look at Kentucky District No. 5 where the distinguished chairman is 
from. Every one of those communities that applied applied because they 
wanted a police officer, not because Washington made them. It was the 
local county commissioners of Perry County, or Pike County, or Clay 
County, or Wolf County, or Jenkins City Police Department, or how about 
West Liberty City Police Department. They applied. Washington did not 
force them. They know how to fight crime at the local level, and they 
received under the COPS Program 25 police officers.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman realize that the State of Kentucky 
under the COPS Program gets $10 million, but under the block grant 
program would get $18 million, Does the gentleman realize that?
  Mr. STUPAK. I realize that, but tell me. Nowhere in that $18 million 
is one police officer guaranteed for Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. They can use it all.
  Mr. STUPAK. Prisons and everything else.
  Mr. ROGERS. They can use it all.
  Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would yield----
  Mr. STUPAK. No, I would like to finish my--and if I have time left--
--
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gunderson). The gentleman from Michigan 
reclaims the time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if I have time remaining, I will yield, but 
I am going to finish my argument.
  Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman should not ask me questions if he does not 
want----
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman tells us that these 
Washington force--it was the gentleman's local communities that wanted 
these police officers, and now what is going to happen? Now, according 
to page 21, if the gentleman's agencies fall below $10,000, they lose 
their block grant, they lose. They lose their COPS Program, and I know 
my friends on that side of the aisle say that is not true, but the 
Department of Justice says under page 21 when they fall below the 
$10,000 rule, they will lose their officers.
  Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. No, I will not. I want to continue my argument.
  Department of Justice, who administers the program, said----
  Mr. ROGERS. The truth?
  Mr. STUPAK, I am interested in putting forth my argument. I have not 
interrupted the gentleman, and the gentleman has never yielded to me 
yet today, so I am not going to yield to him now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] is 
recognized.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman says that this is not 
going to happen, but the Department of Justice who must administer this 
program tells us that is what is going to happen, I believe the 
Department of Justice, that the program will be terminated because of 
their $10,000 rule.
  In Kentucky there are 132 applications pending, 132 more 
municipalities and country sheriffs who did not know what they were 
doing underneath their logic are applying for the COPS Program. My 
colleague will say that we need flexibility, as the gentleman said and 
as the Washington Post pointed out. I do not want the Washington Post 
to fight crime for us. I want local agencies, and that is why we have 
the COPS More Program, more program which provides us equipment, which 
provides us technology, that provides us with the technology we need.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  If the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] is interested in hearing 
the truth, here is what the State of Michigan will sustain under these 
comparative programs.
  Under the COPS Program Michigan gets $33,700,000. Under our block 
grant program Michigan gets about $74,500,000, and they can use it all 
on cops if they want to, or they do not have to if they do not want to.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the distinguished gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. Not for the moment. We give the choice to local 
communities. We are going to give more than twice the amount of money 
to Michigan that they get under the old----
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the distinguished----
  Mr. ROGERS. I will not.
  If the gentleman from Michigan is interested in hearing it from the 
horse's mouth, or whatever he wants to call it, I am giving him the 
truth.
  Michigan fares more than twice better under our program than the old 
COPS Program, and the old COPS Program grants will stay in effect. They 
are not going to lose any of the cops already on the beat under the 
program as it is now. But their communities will have in the future a 
chance for a lot more.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to ask the 
distinguished chairman if he would engage me, please?
  I am curious. If we have two States here who, under the block grant 
program the gentleman is asserting, can get a considerable amount, a 
higher amount, of money, what is the base amount for COPS and for the 
block grant program that the gentleman is comparing? Is that the same 
amount of money?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H 14104]]

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. It is the same amount of money this year, however let me 
also say this to the gentleman:
  Under our proposal each community only has to put up 10 percent to 
get their 90 percent from us. Under the COPS Program, as the gentleman 
knows, in the first year the local community has to put up 25 percent; 
the second year, up to 50 percent, and so forth. That is----
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time so I can just get to the point, if 
we are dealing with the same absolute dollar amount, COPS compared to 
block grant, the gentleman has sighted a pattern in two States where 
the State he is asserting is almost getting twice as much money under a 
block grant program; is that true----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] has expired.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute, and I 
ask the gentleman from Kentucky, if this continues, would he mind 
yielding 1 minute so we can straighten this out? I think it is an 
important point.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. To answer the gentleman's question, the COPS Program, as 
it is now, is based on $1.3 billion in the first year. Our program is 
based on $1.9 billion.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, please; $1.9 billion for what year?
  Mr. ROGERS. For 1996, the year we are talking about.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. For 1996, so the gentleman is comparing last year's 
dollar volume with this year's dollar volume.
  Mr. ROGERS. The awards are not made yet for COPS.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I understand, Mr. Speaker. See, I am trying to 
understand if we are dealing from the same base number; then the 
gentleman has either picked two States who, under the formula, 
miraculously get twice as much money in a block grant program out of 
the same pot of money, or else there are a lot of States out there that 
are going to get a lot less money under the block grant program. One or 
the other?
  See what I mean?
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would yield, we know under the block 
grant program the dollar figure each State will get, and that is the 
figure I gave for the gentleman for the State of Michigan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] has expired.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I will have to conclude by making my point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to finish this 
statement.
  My point, Mr. Speaker, is, if we are dealing with the same base 
number, if the block grant program is yielding up considerably more 
amounts of money, then we have to be dealing with a larger base, and 
the chairman has indicated here, if I am understanding him, that he is 
comparing the 1995 funding level, which I understand is $1.3 billion 
with the 1996 funding level, which is something like $1.9 billion. That 
would explain the discrepancy.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and I think that 
explains the discrepancy with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], 
and I am sure under his program Michigan is going to get the same 
amount as Kentucky.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from West 
Virginia that he has utilized an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we have only one difference about this 
matter. We just happen to think that cops on the streets of America 
speak a heck of a lot louder than all these political promises in 
Washington, and here are some of those police officers. This is their 
graduation picture in Austin, TX, and they are out patrolling the 
streets and the neighborhoods of America making Austin and central 
Texas safer because they are on the street instead of in some political 
promise. Last year they said it could not be done, but this Congress, 
the last Congress, the Democratic Congress, had the courage to pass a 
smart, comprehensive anticrime bill, and it pledged to put 100,000 
police officers on the streets and neighborhoods across the country. 
They said it could not be done. Well, there are already 26,000 new 
officers on the street.

                              {time}  1730

  What do they propose as an alternative? They are going to have a 
comment period for the State bureaucracy, for the Governors of the 
States of the country to comment on whether or not these local requests 
for new cops are appropriate. That comment period is longer than it 
took the city of Austin to get approval to put these new law 
enforcement officers in cadet academies. That is a substitution of 
bureaucracy to go along with all the political rhetoric instead of 
backing up our law enforcement officers.
  The idea that we will have some block grant program that requires the 
approval of a State bureaucracy that will not guarantee one single new 
law enforcement officer to back up these young men and woman who have 
dedicated their lives to protecting the security and the safety of 
their neighbors is flat wrong. These young people, according to our 
police chief, Elizabeth Watson, are out there working to build 
neighborhood enforcement teams. Instead of roving gangs, we have roving 
bands of law enforcement officers protecting our neighbors. The idea of 
a block grant program with no definition, no guarantees, no direction, 
does not provide the assurance we need for personal security in America 
today.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2076, the 
conference report to the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary 
appropriations bills.
  Immigration, both legal and illegal, is an issue that affects every 
American. The Federal Government must take seriously its responsibility 
to establish and maintain a credible immigration policy that benefits 
American families, taxpayers, and workers, and serves America's 
national interests.
  I introduced H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act 
of 1995, to address many of the problems in current immigration law. 
H.R. 2202 recently passed the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote 
of 23 to 10, and has 114 cosponsors. This legislation is designed to 
reduce illegal immigration, and to reform our immigration system.
  Funding is crucial to the effective implementation of these 
immigration policies. Chairman Hal Rogers and I have worked together to 
ensure that the immigration programs and objectives contained in H.R. 
2202, especially those that provide for stronger enforcement of our 
borders, are funded in H.R. 2076. I would like to thank Chairman Rogers 
for his tireless efforts to secure our borders.
  Both bills contain enforcement initiatives to secure America's 
borders. These include an increase of 1,000 border patrol agents on the 
front lines, additional support staff and improved equipment for the 
Border Patrol, and 400 additional land border inspectors.
  Both bills also contain initiatives to remove criminal and illegal 
aliens from the United States. H.R. 2076 funds the removal of illegal 
aliens and criminal aliens after they have served their sentences and 
provides $500 million to reimburse States for the costs of 
incarcerating criminal aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, America's immigration policies have failed in the past 
largely because the Immigration and Naturalization Service has often 
been ignored and underfunded. Both H.R. 2202 and H.R. 2076 will change 
that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], a leader in this body in the 
fight against violence against women.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
conference report because of my strong support for the Violence Against 
Women Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 

[[Page H 14105]]
Livingston], and in fact the entire Committee on Appropriations for 
their cooperation and full support in securing $175 billion to protect 
women from abuse.
  As we have seen recently, domestic abuse and other assaults on women 
do not discriminate based on social status. We already know the 
numbers. Each year over 4 million women are abused by their partners. 
During their lifetime three out of four women will be a victim of 
violent crime. The number of domestic crimes in our Nation today is 
twice that of robberies. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the reality in 
America is that in the next 5 minutes, 1 woman will be raped and 14 
more will be severely beaten by their husbands or boyfriends.
  Yes, while we have heard these statistics over and over again, we 
have marveled at how little has been done in the past, because what we 
have failed to concentrate on up until today are the names and the 
faces and the bodies and souls that are destroyed every 15 seconds in 
America.

  Last year Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act to reduce 
these numbers and increase protection for women. Republicans and 
Democrats stood up and enacted a crime bill that protected them. It has 
been a long fight, first to authorize the Violence Against Women Act, 
and today now finally funding it. Today we show the rest of the country 
that this Congress is committed to stopping crime and helping the 
victims of crime. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from New 
York, Ms. Nita Lowey, for her cooperation.
  Let me just conclude. At a time when the Nation's awareness of 
domestic violence has never been greater, it is essential that we in 
Congress stop talking about doing something about this crime and start 
putting our money behind it by fully funding the Violence Against Women 
Act in this conference report. In this section of the bill we are once 
again standing up for women and against criminals.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for 
his cooperation, and urge on behalf of all those women who will be 
victims of domestic abuse or who may not be because of our efforts 
today to please support this conference report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
hardworking and distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a 
member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating and paying my 
respects to the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, and our terrific 
staff. Given the incredible parameters within which they had to work, 
they have done a decent job, and if there is any indecency here, it is 
not Hal's doing. But there are some serious failings.
  Let me just start off by returning to the question of the block 
grants versus the COPS program. I will be offering the motion to 
recommit when we finish debate on this to transfer or to specify that 
that portion of the funding in this bill that was going to go to block 
grants will be restored to funding the COPS program.
  Mr. Speaker, this is, as many of my colleagues have already pointed 
out, a success already. It is focused, it is effective, it is putting 
money on task on the streets of America to improve safety and law 
enforcement. We are all, I think, appropriately forewarned, given the 
bad experience back in the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 
days of what can happen in a slush-funded, no-accountable block grant 
environment. I hope my colleagues will support the motion to recommit.
  Beyond that problem, Mr. Speaker, there are other problems with this 
bill: the underfunding of our technology investments in the NIST 
accounts, the incredible intrusion into the operations of the Legal 
Services Corporation, the huge shortfall in funding for peacekeeping 
operations at the United Nations that is going to put us in a fiscal 
corner for years; the incredible, idiotic waste of money on the TV 
Marti program; and several extraneous legislative provisions that have 
no business within this bill. This leaves me, with reluctance, to urge 
my colleagues, if the motion to recommit fails, to vote ``no'' on final 
passage.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  (Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
prison litigation reform provisions included in the conference report 
on H.R. 2076, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  Earlier this year the House passed H.R. 667, the Violent Criminal 
Incarceration Act. This bill contained many provisions designed to 
address the problems associated with inmate lawsuits. One area that was 
not included in that legislation was the many so-called Bivens actions 
that are filed by Federal prisoners in Federal court every year. These 
suits are not based on any statutory authority from Congress. In Bivens 
v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the 
Supreme Court created a so-called ``constitutional tort'' that allows 
inmates to circumvent the congressionally created Federal Tort Claims 
Act and sue the Federal Government for alleged violations of their 
constitutional rights due to prison conditions and/or treatment.
  The real problem with these cases came with the Court's decision in 
1992 that an inmate need not exhaust the administrative remedies 
available prior to proceeding with a Bivens action for money damages 
only. McCarthy v. Madigan, 112 S.Ct. 1081 (1992). This decision was 
made without the benefit of any legislative guidance and the Court made 
that point very clearly in its opinion, almost to the point of asking 
that Congress do something. Since 1993 there has been a total of 1,365 
new Bivens cases filed in Federal court tying up the time of Federal 
judges and lawyers for the Bureau of Prisons at a time when we already 
have overcrowded dockets.
  In order to address the problem of Bivens actions, I introduced H.R. 
2468, the Prisoner Lawsuit Efficiency Act (``P.L.E.A.''). This bill 
makes it clear that administrative exhaustion be imposed in all actions 
arising under the Bivens case. In H.R. 667, the House adopted a similar 
provision to that of the P.L.E.A. by requiring the exhaustion of 
administrative remedies for those prisoners bringing suit under 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 1979 (the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act 
(``CRIPA'')).
  I am very pleased to say that I have worked with the conferees of 
H.R. 2076 to ensure that the prison litigation reform measures address 
the Bivens issue. The new administrative exhaustion language in H.R. 
2076 will require that all cases brought by Federal inmates contesting 
any aspect of their incarceration be submitted to administrative remedy 
process before proceeding to court. By returning these cases to the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, we will provide the opportunity for early 
resolution of the problem, we will reduce the intrusion of the courts 
into the administration of the prisons, and we will provide some degree 
of fact-finding so that when or if the matter reaches Federal court 
there will be a record upon which to proceed in a more efficient 
manner.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the 56 Members 
who joined me as a cosponsor of H.R. 2468. Their commitment to a fair 
and efficient judicial system is to be commended. In addition to the 
strong support this proposal has had here in the House, H.R. 2468 has 
been endorsed by Mr. Norman Carlson, Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons from 1970 until 1987, and Mr. Michael Quinlan, Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons from 1987 until 1992. Former U.S. Attorney 
General Dick Thornburgh has written to me stating that:

       An exhaustion requirement [as imposed by H.R. 2468 and now 
     H.R. 2076] would aid in deterring frivolous claims: by 
     raising the cost, in time/money terms, of pursuing a 
     Bivens action, only those claims with a greater 
     probability/magnitude of success would, presumably, 
     proceed.

  Mr. Thornburgh also points out that an administrative review process 
would also aid the Federal courts by allowing for preliminary fact-
finding and the creation of a record at the Bureau level, so as to 
clarify the issues to be presented to the court.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2076 and I commend Mr. Rogers for bringing this conference report to 
the floor.
  I want to speak particularly about title VIII of the conference 
agreement, which contains important provisions concerning prison 
litigation reform. These provisions were proposed by the Senate 
conferees and are substantially similar to the prison litigation reform 
legislation which passed the House--earlier this year.
  Title VIII will provide much needed relief to States dealing with the 
problems of unreasonable Federal court 

[[Page H 14106]]
intervention in the operation of prisons and frivolous litigation by 
prisoners.
  For too long, Federal judges have been attempting to micromanage 
correctional facilities throughout the country. Judicial intervention 
in local prison management has often resulted in the release of 
dangerous criminals.
  This legislation will ensure that relief granted to prisoners who 
claim their rights are being violated by prison officials will go no 
further than necessary to remedy the alleged violation, and that 
imposing a prison population cap should absolutely be a last resort. It 
will also prevent the permanent court supervision of correctional 
facilities by allowing a party to move for the termination of court-
ordered prospective relief within set time periods.
  Title VIII will also significantly curtail the ability of prisoners 
to bring frivolous and malicious lawsuits by forcing prisoners to 
exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing suit in Federal 
court.
  In addition, Title VIII will require a Federal court to dismiss, on 
its own motion, lawsuits which do not state a claim upon which relief 
may be granted or are frivolous or malicious. Furthermore, a prisoner 
who filed a lawsuit in Federal court will have to pay at least a 
nominal filing fee if he has sufficient assets.
  For too long the Federal courts have entertained meritless claims by 
inmates, and have imposed unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on State 
and local correctional authorities. As a consequence, taxpayers' 
resources have been wasted, and efforts to protect the public safety 
have been compromised. It's time we restored some balance and common 
sense to the judiciary's handling of prison litigation.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this conference report which reform 
prison litigation are desperately needed. I urge my colleagues to pass 
the report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from West 
Virginia, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman of this subcommittee of the 
Committee on Appropriations, who is the nicest guy that has ever run 
through a rotten bill. It is a wonderful feat. Everybody brags about 
him, but the bill stinks, thank you very much.
  The President is going to veto the measure. He has told us that over 
and over and over again. Even a Republican Attorney General came before 
the Senate and told them that the provisions dealing with terminating 
all consent decrees is unconstitutional, we do not need an ex-
Republican Attorney General to find that out, and that it would not 
stand constitutional muster. It never got changed.
  What about the most authorizing on an appropriation that has happened 
this year? It happened in this nice chairman's bill here that is loaded 
with judicial matters.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations conference report. This conference report improperly 
includes substantive legislative provisions regarding prison litigation 
reform and truth in sentencing. In addition, the bill severely cuts 
funding for both drug courts and the President's Cops on the Beat 
Program. We cannot incarcerate ourselves out of crime.
  None of these provisions belong in an appropriations bill. These are 
matters clearly within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and 
I am distressed that the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction has been 
subverted in this way.
  The prison litigation reform provisions are problematic for several 
reasons. First, these provisions would have an enormous, negative 
fiscal impact on the Federal judiciary. According to the Administrative 
Office of Courts, requiring the Federal judiciary to hold a trial in 
every future prison conditions case and in every case that is currently 
operating under a consent decree, and requiring that such a hearing be 
held every 2 years thereafter could cost $239 million annually and 
require the hiring of 2,096 new personnel. Notwithstanding this price 
tag, the bill does not appropriate any funds for the Federal judiciary 
to offset these costs.
  Second, the provisions would render emergency relief ineffective. 
Preliminary injunctions would mandatorily terminate 90 days after entry 
unless the court made the injunction final within the 90-day period. It 
is virtually impossible for the parties to complete discovery and for 
the court to complete a trial and issue a decision within 90 days. 
Preliminary injunctions are designed to address emergencies, often 
involving life and death situations that warrant attention in advance 
of the time that is required to conduct a full-blown trial.
  Termination of a preliminary injunction, without attention to whether 
there is good cause for the injunction to remain in effect, and without 
allowing adequate time for the parties to conduct discovery and the 
court to hold a trial would deprive a court of the power to prevent a 
defendant from returning to life threatening practices. Federal courts 
would be prevented from issuing any relief in prison or jail conditions 
cases without a finding of a violation of law, effectively prohibiting 
court-enforceable settlement agreements.
  Third, the provisions would require a court to terminate relief, upon 
motion of either party, 2 years after issuance or 2 year's after the 
Act's enactment unless the court holds a trial and finds an ongoing 
violation of law. In effect, this would legislatively authorize 
defendants to revert to practices that run afoul of the Constitution or 
Federal statutes without consequence until the court could conduct a 
trial and reissue relief. This provision also fails to take into 
account the fact that changing systemic problems often takes years.
  Fourth, the bill would prevent the Federal courts from remedying 
egregious abuses suffered by prisoners. The provisions in the bill 
would apply to all prisoner initiated lawsuits, not merely frivolous 
lawsuits. Thus lawsuits seeking to enjoin the rape of juvenile and 
female prisoners by prison guards, suits to enjoin sadistic beating of 
prisoners, and the failure to provide prisoners with minimally adequate 
medical care would all be prevented by this legislation.
  Finally, the prison litigation reform provisions are unconstitutional 
as written. Witnesses called by both sides at a Senate Judiciary 
Committee hearing this past July agreed that changes were necessary 
before the bill could pass constitutional muster.
  For example, former Attorney General William Barr, who testified in 
support of the general principles behind the bill, testified that the 
termination of all existing consent decrees is unconstitutional. The 
changes suggested by the witnesses to make the bill constitutional are 
not reflected in the current language.
  The truth in sentencing provisions in the conference report are also 
troubling. Current law evenly distributes funding for prisons. But 
under the new provisions in this bill, some states will totally be 
denied funding and states that make only modest improvements in 
relatively weak sentencing schemes will be highly favored over states 
with long-standing, tougher policies. Moreover, funds will be unfairly 
and irrationally allocated among the states so that low population 
states with relatively little violent crime will often get the same 
funding as high population states with serious violent crime problems.
  Finally, the conference report contains block grants for both the 
Cops on the Beat Program and the Drug Court Program. If states are 
given block grants for general law enforcement purposes rather than 
given money to be spent on hiring more police officers, the President 
will not be able to fulfill his pledge to put 100,000 more cops on the 
beat. Putting police officers on the streets, walking the beat, has 
proven effective. There is no reason to halt the funding for a program 
that has been shown to reduce crime and increase public confidence in 
police. Similar logic applies to the drug courts program. We should not 
stop funding programs that have been shown to reduce crime.
  Because I object to this use of an appropriations bill as a way to 
subvert the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction and because the bill 
contains provisions which are substantively harmful, I urge a no vote 
on the conference report.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Brownback].
  (Mr. BROWNBACK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, who I think wrote an 
extraordinarily good bill, in a colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this bill is the first 
step toward eliminating the Department of Commerce. As Senator majority 
Leader Dole said yesterday in a Wall Street Journal opinion page piece, 
and I quote: ``We are firmly committed to eliminating the Commerce 
Department this year so that we may establish, in practice, the 
principle that wasteful programs and agencies no longer have permanent 
tenure in the Federal Government.'' I will be entering this article 
into the Record. 

[[Page H 14107]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], am 
I correct in assuming the Commerce dismantling language must take place 
in the authorization process.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Any legislation 
dealing with the reorganization of the Commerce Department must be 
addressed in the authorization process. We have certainly taken a first 
step in this bill by terminating the Advanced Technology Program and 
taking significant reductions in many Commerce agencies and individual 
programs.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.

              [From The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 5, 1995]

            `Reinvent' Commerce Department Out of Existence

                   (By Bob Dole and Spencer Abraham)

       The 1994 Republican landslide came about because we had a 
     clear message that resonated with the American people: 
     Government should be smaller, more local, less intrusive, and 
     less costly. Our welfare and budget measures constitute large 
     steps in the right direction. But to fulfill our mission we 
     also must reduce the size of the federal government by 
     eliminating programs that are unnecessary, duplicative and 
     wasteful.
       No agency fits this description better than the Commerce 
     Department. The department's own inspector general calls it 
     ``a loose collection in more than 100 programs.'' The 
     nonpartisan General Accounting Office notes that it shares 
     its ``missions with at least 71 federal departments, 
     agencies, and offices.'' And this loose collection of ill-
     defined programs has no unifying purpose or goal. Former 
     Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher notes that the 
     department's is ``nothing more than a hall closet where you 
     throw in everything that you don't know what to do with.'' 
     Even the president's own Office of Management and Budget 
     acknowledged the department's lack of purpose by sending home 
     67% of Commerce's bureaucrats as ``nonessential'' during the 
     recent government shutdown.
       We are firmly committed to eliminating the Commerce 
     Department this year so that we may establish, in practice, 
     the principle that wasteful programs and agencies no longer 
     have permanent tenure in the federal government. This is not 
     to say that we can or should begin a wholesale dismantling of 
     the federal government. But as a federal bureaucracy, the 
     Commerce Department simply has no reason to exist.
       Defenders of the Commerce Department contend that it has a 
     clear purpose: to promote U.S. international trade. They 
     claim that the department's trade advocacy and counseling 
     efforts ``returned * * * to the federal Treasury for every * 
     * * in export promotion.'' According to this view, it is 
     federal bureaucrats who secure foreign contacts for American 
     businesses, thus holding the American economy together.
       This is obviously not true. As former Clinton economic 
     adviser Robert Shapiro of the Progressive Policy Institute 
     says: ``All you can do with [export promotion] is increase 
     jobs for companies with the clout to get the subsidy. But 
     that's at the expense of industries that don't have the 
     clout. You're just shifting things around.''
       Many of the department's other programs are simply taxpayer 
     subsidies for some of America's biggest corporations. The 
     U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration subsidizes tourism, 
     while the Technology Administration and the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology subsidize corporate 
     research. These programs take money from taxpayers and 
     successful companies to fund bureaucrats' favorite companies 
     and projects. And this comes at a heavy cost--the cost of 
     employing 37,500 bureaucrats at an average salary of $42,000. 
     That's about $10,000 more per year than the average Kansas or 
     Michigan family earns.
       In reality, most of the tens of thousands of bureaucrats in 
     the vast Commerce Department building on Pennsylvania Avenue 
     do nothing to promote U.S. trade. Some claim that the 
     Commerce Department is required by our Constitution, because 
     that document makes regulating commerce a federal function. 
     But, in fact, about half of the department's $3.6 billion 
     budget is consumed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, the nation's weather and ocean mapping 
     service. And while 19 federal agencies are charged with 
     promoting U.S. exports, Commerce directs only 8% of federal 
     spending toward trade promotion.
       The Commerce Department's functions can be done without, or 
     done more efficiently by other agencies, or the states, or 
     the private sector. This does not mean, however, that we 
     would or should terminate all the department's functions. 
     Instead, after eliminating the umbrella organization and its 
     bureaucracy, we would eliminate unneeded programs, 
     transferring or privatizing programs that are necessary.
       An example of a Commerce program that needs to be 
     eliminated outright is the Economic Development 
     Administration. At one point, 40% of the EDA's loans were in 
     default, while economic assistance grants were being 
     distributed to such affluent areas as Key Biscayne, Fla. Even 
     when it is effective, the EDA duplicates the efforts of 
     numerous other programs in other departments. Other programs 
     that should be eliminated include the Technology 
     Administration and the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration. The latter outfit issues telecom 
     grants; for example, it recently gave $200,000 to HandsNet 
     Inc., a California-based Internet service used by liberal 
     lobbyists. The last thing our government should be paying for 
     is lobbying aimed at making it spend more taxpayer dollars.
       While those programs should be eliminated, others, like the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, should be 
     moved to more appropriate agencies or to private 
     institutions. For example, seafood inspection should be 
     transferred to the Agriculture Department, which already 
     carries out most food inspection programs. As for 
     international trade programs, the bulk of these should be 
     sent to a single, unified trade agency incorporating the 
     existing U.S. Trade Representative's office.
       This is the way to effectively ``reinvent'' government. Our 
     Commerce Department elimination plan would save $6 billion 
     over seven years. By eliminating unnecessary programs and 
     bureaucracies, like those now churning away within the 
     Commerce Department, we can bring federal spending under 
     control. And guess what? The really essential functions of 
     government will be done more efficiently than ever before 
     once the federal bureaucracy isn't wasting its time on so 
     many unnecessary efforts.

  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee for helping us advance 
the cause to eliminate this unnecessary bureaucracy this year. May we 
assume that the chairman remains committed to dismantling the 
Department of Commerce, and that he will continue to work with us to do 
so in the authorization process this year?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Michigan knows, we 
have worked closely on these efforts this year, and I will continue to 
support the process that has been established.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Molinari] for her work on eliminating woman abuse. I 
wholeheartedly support her efforts.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member 
of the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. I think it ought to 
be beaten. I am in favor of the motion to recommit that will be offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] to require the retention of 
the Cops on the Beat Program. The President has clearly indicated he 
will veto this bill if the Cops on the Beat Program is not restored.
  This program is putting 26,000 cops in 175 communities all around the 
country, including 32 in my district. Forty-nine percent of the police 
agencies in communities under 50,000 people have applied for funding 
under the COPS Program. I think this indicates this is not just a 
program which is popular in urban areas. The Justice Department has 
requests for over 9,000 more to be funded right now. That, to me, 
indicates that communities are highly desirous of obtaining help under 
this bill.
  I think the block grant program is a mistake. We have seen in the 
past outrageous examples of waste in that program. We do not want to 
repeat it. I urge Members to support the Skaggs motion to recommit.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] who has been very active on the block grant 
program.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate here about the COPS 
Program. I find it fascinating to hear it, and the block grant program 
and so on.
  I think we are dealing here with a fundamental difference between 
Republicans and Democrats. We have been a long time in making this 
block grant program and in making our point about it. What we are doing 
with the COPS Program and with the prevention programs that were passed 
in the last Congress is we are consolidating 

[[Page H 14108]]
them into a $10 billion block grant program, $2 billion of which is in 
this bill for the first year over 5 years today before us as well as 
the authorization. What we are in the process of doing is saying to the 
cities and the counties, ``You know best how to spend that money to 
fight crime.'' It makes a whole lot more sense to us.

                              {time}  1745

  Democrats on that side of the aisle want the same old business as 
usual up here that Washington knows best, and I do not think that is 
true. I think Spokane, WA knows better how to spend its money to fight 
crime and Charleston, SC knows better how to spend its money, and what 
is good for Spokane may not be good for Charleston.
  The same thing is true for the COPS of the Street Program, which is 
what we are talking about. We are hearing about this bill being vetoed 
over that issue. I want to make the point that the choice is not 
between more police and block grants. The choice is between more police 
under the COPS Program versus more police at less cost to localities 
with greater flexibility under the block grant proposal.
  Not one single cop that has been funded so far of the 26,000 would be 
lost or 1 year of funding under what we wrote that is in this bill. I 
do not care what the Justice Department says, I helped write the 
language, and I am very confident of that.
  In addition to that, under your proposal, as you can see from this 
chart, the 74,000 more cops that the President is going to get under 
his plan over here under the 100,000 are easily going to be funded by 
the cities in making their choice over here, with only about a third of 
the block grant money. I am confident that is going to take place. I am 
confident because in one measure the President of the League of Cities 
wrote a letter to me yesterday that I want to introduce into the Record 
right here.

                                    National League of Cities,

                                 Washington, DC, December 5, 1995.
     Hon. Bill McCollum,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Cannon 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the nation's 
     135,000 municipal elected leaders from cities and towns 
     across the country to reaffirm our continued support for your 
     leadership efforts to make the federal anti-crime partnership 
     more efficient and effective in addressing local crime and 
     violence. Rather than supplanting police officers, we believe 
     your public safety block grant legislation would have the 
     effect of enabling us at the local level to take initiatives 
     to put more police officers on the street to enhance 
     neighborhood safety.
       Just this last week, more than 4,100 of our members met at 
     our Congress of Cities in Phoenix and voted unanimously to 
     adopt national municipal policy urging greater flexibility 
     for municipal officials to take steps to address public 
     safety in our communities. No level of government has a 
     greater stake in federal anti-crime and safety efforts, so 
     the response from our members--Republicans, Democrats, and 
     Independents--from cities and towns of all sizes, 
     reemphasizes our support for the positive steps you are 
     taking to address the public safety needs of cities.
       Our experience is that the kinds of approaches to and needs 
     for public safety vary enormously from city to city, as do 
     local resources. Consequently, we are apprehensive that any 
     one-size-fits-all approach or one that requires a match 
     irrespective of demands and local resources limits our 
     ability and flexibility to meet local issues as effectively 
     as possible. We are concerned that the debate between the 
     existing cops program and your legislation is elevating form 
     over substance.
       We believe your legislation could lead to initiatives and 
     programs that would put more, not less officers on the street 
     than current law. It would permit cities to purchase 
     equipment, to move trained personnel onto the streets, and to 
     take other actions to insure more effective and efficient 
     responses. Equally importantly, it is more balanced in 
     meeting the needs of cities with disproportionately limited 
     resources and higher crime and violence rates. These are 
     critical issues to us.
       Our members strongly believe that your proposal would make 
     for a more effective and flexible partnership on one of the 
     highest priorities of every municipal leader in America. We 
     appreciate your efforts and look forward to positive action 
     by the Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gregory S. Lashutka,
                                     President, Mayor of Columbus.

  It says, ``We believe that your legislation could lead to initiatives 
and programs,'' talking about the block grants, ``that would put more, 
not less, officers on the streets than current law. It would permit 
cities to purchase equipment, to move trained personnel onto the 
streets, and to take other actions to ensure more effective and 
efficient responses. Equally important, it is more balanced in meeting 
the needs of cities with disproportionately limited resources and 
higher crime and violence rates. These are critical to us.''
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, cities and communities around 
this country with block grants are going to put more cops, more than 
100,000, on the streets with this flexibility that they want. The 
police chief in Washington, DC, Chief Thomas, testifying before my 
subcommittee this summer, said in response to a question that Mr. Davis 
asked, ``Would you prefer to put that money into technology as opposed 
to new officers at this point?'' Chief Thomas responded, ``Yes, I 
would. I think that is a better use of our dollars to improve the 
infrastructure in the department.'' The Washington Post said the block 
grant program is a better program.
  My point is that we are dealing here now with an opportunity for us 
to get this clarification we need on the record. This is a form-over-
substance thing for those who are opposing it.
  The COPS Program is a good program. It is what the cities and 
communities want under the block grant system, not the President's 
proposal, but the block grant proposal that is in this bill that allows 
them maximum flexibility and gets more police officers, and the other 
is nonsense.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  [Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.]
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a Christmas gift 
to America's violent felons. Every gun-toting gang-banger, every 
ruthless drug lord, every violent carjacker on America's streets should 
celebrate tonight if this bill passes, because it will mean fewer cops 
on the street and fewer prison cells to put them away once the cops 
apprehend them. The report is so filled with bad ideas it ought to be 
called the ``Soft-On-Violent-Criminals Act.''
  Here are just three of the worst ideas: First, it kills the COPS 
Program, as has been mentioned. Every major police organization in 
America opposes this bill because they know it will mean fewer cops. 
They know it will give money to mayors and governors and all sorts of 
politicians to do what they want with it, not to put cops on the 
street.
  Now the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] defends the block grant 
program, and he is my friend and I respect him. Let us hear what Newt 
Gingrich said about the block grant program. He said, this is Speaker 
Gingrich, the exalted leader, the man who brought you to the Promised 
Land. He said

       If they say to me, in the name of fighting crime, will I 
     send a $2 billion check to the cities, many of which have 
     destructive bureaucracies, to let the local politicians build 
     a bigger machine with more patronage, my answer is no. What I 
     cannot defend is sending a blank check to local politicians 
     across the country for them to decide how to spend it.

  The last time we did a block grant, a small town in Louisiana bought 
a tank. The Governor of Indiana bought a jet plane. A study was even 
financed to figure out why inmates want to escape from prison.
  And to boot, 23 States will get less money to build prisons under the 
Republican proposal. Your State is probably on the list. Take a look 
when we come to the door.
  Less money for cops, less money for prisons. It just does not make 
any sense. And instead, a giant pork barrel that says to governors and 
mayors: put your brother-in-law on the payroll, buy useless equipment, 
do not put cops on the street.
  This bill, simply because COPS was originally an idea of Democrats, 
simply because Democrats wanted to get tough on crime, came about as an 
alternative. It is a weak alternative. The President should veto it, 
and then we should support law enforcement, support prisons, support 
cops, and put a better bill together. I strongly urge a vote against 
this wasteful, soft-on-crime proposal.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  
[[Page H 14109]]

  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman portrays the idea that the COPS Program 
put more policemen on the beat than the local block grant will. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. If you want to know the answer to the 
question of which is best for our communities, let me refer you, 
gentleman, to the mayor of Columbus, OH, who happens to be the 
president of the National League of Cities who wrote a letter just 
yesterday to us, and I will submit it for the Record.
  He says, and we have lifted this portion from the letter: ``We 
believe your legislation,'' the block grant program, ``could lead to 
initiatives and programs that would put more, not less, officers on the 
street than current law. It would permit cities to purchase equipment, 
to move trained personnel onto the streets, and to take other actions 
to ensure more effective and efficient responses. Equally important, it 
is more balanced in meeting the needs of cities with disproportionately 
limited resources and higher crime and violence rates. These are 
critical issues to us.'' So says the mayor of Columbus, OH, and so says 
the League of Cities of the United States of America.
  The National Association of Chiefs of Police, the people who have to 
enforce our laws, says, please give us the block grant program. We need 
cops, yes. We also need bulletproof vests for those cops. We need 
police cars. We need radios, we need equipment. Let us decide where to 
put the money. Do not tell us from Washington with your cookie-cutter 
approach, one-size-fits-all, do not tell us what we need. Give us the 
money to fight crime in our cities, do not tell us how to use it.
  So we say to you, support this bill, reject the motion to recommit, 
and let us put those cops on the beat as the cities and communities 
want them. Vote against the motion to recommit and support the 
conference report.

                                    National League of Cities,

                                                   Washington, DC,
     Hon. Bill McCollum,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the nation's 
     135,000 municipal elected leaders from cities and towns 
     across the country to reaffirm our continued support for your 
     leadership efforts to make the federal anti-crime partnership 
     more efficient and effective in addressing local crime and 
     violence. Rather than supplanting police officers, we believe 
     your public safety block grant legislation would have the 
     effect of enabling us at the local level to take initiatives 
     to put more police officers on the street to enhance 
     neighborhood safety.
       Just this last week, more than 4,100 of our members met at 
     our Congress of Cities in Phoenix and voted unanimously to 
     adopt national municipal policy urging greater flexibility 
     for municipal officials to take steps to address public 
     safety in our communities. No level of government has a 
     greater stake in federal anti-crime and safety efforts, so 
     the response from our members--Republicans, Democrats, and 
     Independents--from cities and towns of all sizes, 
     reemphasizes our support for the positive steps you are 
     taking to address the public safety needs of cities.
       Our experience is that the kinds of approaches to and needs 
     for public safety vary enormously from city to city, as do 
     local resources. Consequently, we are apprehensive that any 
     one-size-fits-all approach or one that requires a match 
     irrespective of demands and local resources limits our 
     ability and flexibility to meet local issues as effectively 
     as possible. We are concerned that the debate between the 
     existing cops program and your legislation is elevating form 
     over substance.
       We believe your legislation could lead to initiatives and 
     programs that would put more, not less officers on the street 
     than current law. It would permit cities to purchase 
     equipment, to move trained personnel onto the streets, and to 
     take other actions to insure more effective and efficient 
     responses. Equally importantly, it is more balanced in 
     meeting the needs of cities with disproportionately limited 
     resources and higher crime and violence rates. These are 
     critical issues to us.
       Our members strongly believe that your proposal would make 
     for a more effective and flexible partnership on one of the 
     highest priorities of every municipal leader in America. We 
     appreciate your efforts and look forward to positive action 
     by the Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gregory S. Lashutka,
                                     President, Mayor of Columbus.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to terminate this 
successful COPS Program.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the COPS Program, and in opposition 
to H.R. 2076.
  The American people are demanding tough and effective solutions to 
our Nation's crime problem. That's why Congress passed the most 
sweeping crime bill in U.S. history last year. That important 
legislation created the COPS Program, which is already making our 
streets safer by putting more than 25,000 new police officers on 
American streets in its first year.
  In my district alone, the COPS Program has provided funding for 
almost two dozen new officers to patrol the streets of Marin and Sonoma 
Counties. These officers are helping to protect my constituents from 
violent criminals, and officers like them are sharply reducing crime 
rates throughout the country.
  Now, just as we are beginning to see a significant reduction in 
crime, the other side wants to take thousands of officers off our 
streets and leave local communities without adequate police protection. 
This legislation will put the American people at risk by eliminating 
the COPS Program and slashing funding for crucial crime prevention 
efforts.
  Now is not the time to be terminating successful anticrime 
initiatives like the COPS Program. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
motion to recommit, and to vote against this misguided bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also place in the Record a 
letter from the United States Conference of Mayors opposing this.
  The Commerce-Justice-State appropriations conference report cuts 12 
percent from the administration's request. This report eliminates the 
successful Cops-on-the-Beat Program and replaces it with a block grant 
to States. We do not know that this block grant will provide more 
police on our streets, it could be used for many other purposes.
  In my district in Houston, our Mayor Lanier and Police Chief Nuchia 
have used the Cops-on-the-Beat to add 376 more police officers on the 
streets of Houston. It is a success and yet the Congress wants to kill 
it--I hope President Clinton vetoes this bill because we need to keep 
these 376 police officers on our Houston streets--not have them lost in 
the bureaucracy.
                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                 Washington, DC, December 6, 1995.
     Hon. Charles Schumer,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the 
         Judiciary, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Schumer: As the Subcommittee on Crime begins an 
     oversight hearing on the COPS program, I am writing to 
     apprise you of the strong support of The U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors for the program. We worked very hard with Congress and 
     the Administration last year to see the program enacted into 
     law. The U.S. Department of Justice, and the COPS Office in 
     particular, have worked very hard since then to implement it 
     in a quick and effective fashion, and it has already begun to 
     make a difference on the streets of our cities. They have 
     been extremely responsive to the needs and requests of our 
     cities.
       We are aware that there are proposals in Congress to change 
     the COPS program into a block grant and that, in fact, the 
     conference agreement on the Commerce, Justice, State 
     appropriations bill would substitute the block grant for 
     FY96. We believe that changing the program at this time would 
     be a mistake. Cities have allocated money and personnel to 
     the program and have budgeted for the future with the COPS 
     program in mind. While a block grant is quite tempting, we 
     have a program on hand which is working. We are concerned 
     that changing the program at this time would represent bad 
     public policy and could jeopardize some of the progress we 
     have made in our cities to prevent and control crime.
       Change now also seems premature since the Subcommittee is 
     just now holding an oversight hearing. We recommend that 
     Congress examine the program's effectiveness through the 
     oversight process before considering changes in it.
       At the annual meeting of The U.S. Conference of Mayors last 
     June we adopted a policy resolution which reiterated our 
     continuing support for the COPS program and called on 
     Congress to provide full funding for it in the future. We 
     urge you to help us see this happen.
           Sincerely,

                                              Wellington Webb,

                                                  Mayor of Denver,
                     Chair, Criminal and Social Justice Committee.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], 
chairman of the Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations Subcommittee 
has expressed his concerns to me regarding the Organized Crime and Drug 
Enforcement Task Forces. As the gentleman from Iowa and I both know, 
there has been a 

[[Page H 14110]]
long history of cooperation between the Treasury and Justice 
Departments on the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces 
[OCDETF], with nearly a third of the assigned agents coming from 
Treasury agencies. These task forces have been successful in part 
because of Treasury's specialized expertise in money laundering, 
financial crime, tax law and other matters. Treasury's expertise is 
particularly critical in drug racketeering cases, and can often clinch 
a case for a jury and make the difference between a conviction and an 
acquittal. The appropriation for these task forces has been reduced $15 
million below the House level. As indicated in the Statement of 
Managers, the conferees intend that reductions be made proportionately 
among all law enforcement agencies, not just from Treasury and the 
Coast Guard, based on each agency's task force requirements and 
participation. The conferees will work to ensure funds are distributed 
fairly, and have required Justice to report back to the committee on 
the allocation of these funds.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
conference report on H.R. 2076, making appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
Agencies Programs for fiscal year 1996. This bill will cripple many of 
our Nation's most important governmental functions so that the 
interests of the American people will not be well served.
  Excluding the money from the violent crime control trust fund, 
established in the 1994 Crime Control Act (Public Law 103-322), this 
bill appropriates 13 percent less than requested by the Clinton 
administration. This legislation cuts the State Department by 9 percent 
and the Commerce Department by 15 percent.
  In addition to these overall reductions, the conference report also 
eliminates funding for many governmental programs that have proven to 
be excellent investments of Federal dollars. The conference report on 
H.R. 2076 eliminates the advanced technology program that has created 
thousands of jobs across this Nation. The bill also eliminates the U.S. 
Travel and Tourism Administration, which provides assistance to one of 
America's fastest growing industries, an industry that provides jobs to 
millions of Americans.
  In the Justice portion of the bill, the committee has failed to 
follow through with the President's unprecedented efforts to fight 
crime. The bill provides for $281 million less than requested by the 
Clinton administration for the Department of Justice. This substantial 
cut in crime fighting dollars for many programs that would have played 
an essential role in our efforts to make our citizens safer is short 
sighted and dangerous.
  Crime control measures supported by the administration to prevent 
crime, hire more police officers and fight the scourge of drugs will be 
substantially cut or eliminated in this conference report. The report 
would slash funding for the highly successful and popular cops program 
that responds to the public's desire for an increased police presence 
in our communities. As a result of the cuts in this legislation, the 
hiring of new police officers under the cops grant program would be 
ended, and instead, a Republican local law enforcement block grant 
program would replace mechanisms set up in the 1994 crime bill to fund 
local crime fighting.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriation for the Department of Commerce is a 
devastating $1.3 billion--27 percent--below the total requested by the 
administration. The conference report hampers our Government's efforts 
to promote economic development and technology advancement. As a result 
of the draconian cuts to the Department of Commerce, the Economic 
Development Administration originally targeted for elimination would 
survive, but would be cut by over 21 percent. In addition, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology would be drastically cut by over 
60 percent. This program includes the successful manufacturing 
extension partnership program that has helped our Nation's industries 
create jobs for thousands of Americans.

  Economic opportunities for women and minorities will also be 
substantially curtailed by the legislation we are considering today. 
The minority business development agency will be cut by over 33 
percent. This irresponsible and unjust slashing of the budget for this 
important agency will lead to the foreclosing of economic opportunities 
for thousands of Americans who must also endure the ravages of 
systematic discrimination.
  Next, the Legal Services Corporation, that provides vital legal 
assistance to poor Americans who cannot afford an attorney, has also 
been targeted for substantial cuts. In addition to cutting the budget 
for the Legal Services Corporation by a staggering 37 percent, this 
appropriations bill prohibits attorneys from receiving Federal 
assistance when representing illegal aliens, initiating class action 
suits or participating in litigation involving prisoners or abortions. 
There are few more sacred rights possessed by Americans than their 
right to seek redress in the courts. This attack on the Legal Services 
Corporation is yet another attempt by the new Republican majority to 
weaken programs which are politically unpopular with conservatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that the attempt by the 
majority to curtail essential governmental services to the American 
public is clearly inappropriate. This action circumvents the 
appropriate authorizing committees that should consider the proposed 
elimination or weakening of so many important laws. With limited 
opportunity for debate and hearings, this ``legislation'' in an 
appropriations bill is clearly an unjustifiable circumvention of the 
procedures of the U.S. House of Representatives. This attempt to short 
circuit the process can only have one result: The compromise of vital 
services affecting the poor, minorities, women, and Americans overall.
  It is my belief that the conference report for H.R. 2076 and the 
circumstances under which it is presented in this House is an attempt 
to mislead the American people to believe that simplistic solutions 
will cure what ails this Nation. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. As our Nation faces an epidemic of crime, discrimination and 
poverty, the solution to these problems will not be found in quick 
fixes by slashing programs unpopular with the Republican majority. The 
American people elected us to act in their best interest, not 
compromise their welfare because Government refuses to have the courage 
to meet its obligations to all of its citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would again like to express my opposition 
to the misguided priorities this bill represents. I strongly encourage 
all of my colleagues to vote against the conference report on H.R. 
2076.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, let me first applaud 
Chairman Rogers, the Committee, and the Committee staff for their 
extraordinary efforts in producing this fiscal year 1996 Commerce, 
Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill. Furthermore, I would 
like to acknowledge the Committee's support for initiatives under the 
National Institute on Justice [NIJ] account, and in particular the 
language that encourages the NIJ to undertake a national study on 
correctional health care.
  This language carries a considerable amount of importance to our 
Nation's criminal justice system and not-for-profit organizations 
devoted to assisting states with correctional health care programs. For 
example, in North Carolina, the National Commission on Correctional 
Health Care has been working with health and correctional officials in 
an effort to stem escalating costs and other problems associated with 
correctional health care. Understanding the potential health risk 
associated with the more than 11 million persons that are released from 
jails, prisons, and juvenile correctional facilities annually, the 
National Commission assists correctional and public health officials 
throughout the country with correctional health care concerns. As we 
look to advance the efforts that provide data relevant to crime and the 
criminal justice system at NIJ, efforts like that of the National 
Commission should be encouraged.
  I thank Chairman Rogers for his support on this matter, and I urge 
the committee's continued support for activities related to the 
National Commission and correctional health care.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a former Federal prosecutor 
to discuss a topic that unfortunately, directly impact so many of our 
constituents.
  Crime in this country has reached epidemic proportions, and it is 
time this body got serious about restoring the rule of law to our 
society.
  Today 8 out of every 10 Americans can expect to be the victim of a 
violent crime at least once in their lives.
  Indeed, the fight against crime engages us in a struggle that affects 
the very core and future of American society.
  As the 104th Congress joins in this fight, I urge all of my 
colleagues to support the conference report before us today.
  It allocates to this battle a very significant amount of money in a 
very sensible way.
  It takes us away from the Washington-knows-best of the 103rd 
Congress, and sends decision making back to the local law enforcement 
agencies.
  I congratulate my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for 
following through on the Judiciary Committee's fine work, and look 
forward to supporting this conference report.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations conference report includes $11.75 million 
for the East-West Center in Honolulu, HI.
  The brain child of President Lyndon B. Johnson, the East-West Center 
has been dedicated to improving the mutual understanding and 
cooperation among the governments and peoples of the Asia-Pacific 
region for 35 years. The Center, established in 1960, helps prepare the 
United States for constructive involvement in Asia and the Pacific 
through education, dialog, research and outreach.

[[Page H 14111]]

  Over 35,000 Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders from over 60 
nations and territories have participated in the East-West Center's 
educational, research and conference programs. Presidents, prime 
ministers, ambassadors and distinguished scholars and statesmen from 
all parts of the region have used the Center as a forum to advance 
international cooperation.
  Among, its most important functions is its graduate program which 
brings together students from all over the United States and the Asia-
Pacific region to study specific issues related to the Asian Pacific 
region and develop through personal contact mutual understanding and 
cooperation among the Asia-Pacific nations, including the United 
States. Most of these students go on to assume positions in government, 
business, the media and academia in their respective countries and 
utilize their experience at the East-West center to shape policy and 
foster understanding among Asia-Pacific nations.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when we face unparalleled challenges in Asia 
and the Pacific continuing the work of the center is more important now 
than ever. I am pleased that the conference committee affirmed the 
important role of the East-West center by continuing Federal support.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2076, the 
Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill which provides needed 
funds to the states, especially my state of California, to pay for the 
costs of illegal immigrants. The decision by Judge Mariana Pfaelzer to 
strike many important portions of the vote-passed Proposition 187, 
which had eliminated state support for illegal aliens, stresses the 
need for this Congress to respond to the growing problem of illegal 
immigration. Judge Pfaelzer ruled that illegal immigration was a 
federal problem requiring a federal solution. While this is not the 
ultimate or best solution, it certainly is an acceptable interim step.
  H.R. 2076 would provide $500 million to lift from the backs of state 
taxpayers the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons. In 
addition, this important appropriations measure would provide for an 
additional $300 million to fight the problem of illegal immigration at 
the border.
  While not in this specific Conference Report, I would like to take 
this opportunity to point out that the Balanced Budget Act passed by 
Congress also provides $3.5 billion for assisting the states with the 
cost of emergency health care for illegal immigrants. This is an 
important initiative about which Speaker Gingrich and I first announced 
a month ago in Yorba Linda in my district. The people of California are 
strongly in favor of this needed reimbursement and rightly deserve it.
  I ask my colleagues, especially those who represent districts equally 
affected by the problem of illegal immigration, to support the passage 
of this important legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Emerson]. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. skaggs

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Skaggs moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 2076 (H. Rept. 104-378) to the committee of the 
     conference report with the instruction that within the scope 
     of the differences committed to them, that the managers on 
     the part of the House insist that the funds intended for 
     community policing from within the $1,903,000,000 provided 
     under the heading ``Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State 
     and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' for Local Law 
     Enforcement Black Grants, pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by 
     the House of Representatives on February 14, 1995, in the 
     conference substitute be provided instead pursuant to the 
     Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing provisions 
     of title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994 for which the Senate amendment provided funds.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 231, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 840]

                               YEAS--190

     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
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     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)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     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
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--231

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     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
     Condit
     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)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     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)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     
[[Page H 14112]]

     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Chapman
     DeFazio
     Fowler
     Jefferson
     Laughlin
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1816

  Messrs. DeLAY, POMBO, and NEUMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. NADLER, CRAMER, and BEVILL changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7, rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256, 
nays 166, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 841]

                               YEAS--256

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

                               NAYS--166

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Chapman
     Clayton
     DeFazio
     Fowler
     Jefferson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1832

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for, with Mr. DeFazio against.

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________