[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15239-H15243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H15239]]


DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
 AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1966--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF 
                THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104-149)

  The SPEAKER. The unfinished business is the further consideration of 
the veto of the President 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.


                      motion offered by mr. rogers

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion and I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rogers moves that the message, together with the 
     accompanying bill, be referred to the Committee on 
     Appropriations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is 
recognized for 1 hour.


                             general leave

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and that I be allowed to include tabular and extraneous material on 
H.R. 2076.
  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 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for the purposes of debate only, and I 
yield back 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day today, after the President has vetoed 
the largest crime fighting budget in the Nation's history, just one day 
after the FBI announced that crime rates are finally starting to drop. 
It is a sad day today, when all of the Federal employees in the 
Departments of Justice, State, and Commerce, the Federal Courts, and 20 
related agencies, more than 200,000 of them, have their jobs left in 
doubt because the President refused to sign the full year appropriation 
for them.
  Two-thirds of the funding in this bill, Mr. Speaker, nearly $18 
billion, would have gone to putting criminals behind bars.
  Think about the programs that will not go into effect because of this 
veto: $14.6 billion for law enforcement, a 19 percent increase, 
including $3.6 billion for state and local law enforcement to give them 
the resources to fight crime where it counts, on our streets. That is a 
57-percent increase over last year.
  An $895 million increase to combat illegal immigration and secure the 
Nation's borders; $146 million more than the President requested, 
including 3,000 more INS personnel and 1,000 more border patrols on the 
border. We need to get these people hired and trained. Otherwise the 
money will be wasted.
  The bill includes $500 million for California, Texas, Florida, New 
York, and other States most impacted by criminal aliens, and the 
President is telling those states, ``tough luck.''
  In the bill vetoed is also $175 million for violence against women 
programs, 7 times more than we provided this year, the full amount of 
the President's request. Now he is vetoing the money for violence 
against women.
  On October 15, the President accused the Congress of reducing 
domestic violence programs by $50 million, hampering ``our efforts to 
protect battered women and their children, to preserve families, and to 
punish those crimes.''

                              {time}  1230

  Well, Mr. Speaker, that $50 million is included in this conference 
report, plus $125 million more. We fully fund the program. And what 
does the President do? He says ``no.''
  Why is he vetoing the bill? He says we do not spend enough money on 
some programs. Even while he is meeting now to reduce spending, he 
wants us to include and increase spending for things like the Ounce of 
Prevention Council, $2 million; the Globe Program, $7 million. Great 
international organizations he wants money spent for, and among the 
reasons he vetoed the bill, are things like the Bureau of International 
Expositions; and, get this one, the International Office of Epizootics.
  That is why he says he is vetoing the bill, and for corporate welfare 
programs he says we did not fund, like the Advanced Technology Program. 
That is corporate welfare. I think we were all determined to cut it and 
we did in this bill. And he is vetoing the bill, he says, because of 
his pique over the COPS program. As we have said so many times, this is 
not a debate over putting more police on the streets. The conference 
report fully funds the request of $1.9 billion, giving our local 
communities the resources to hire every single policeman on the beat 
that the President proposed, and then some, as the President says. The 
difference is over who controls the program. Is it a Washington-based, 
one-size-fits-all program, that the President wants; or do we empower 
local communities to decide what they need most to fight crime?

  We have heard the problems with the President's COPS program. 
According to the General Accounting Office, 50 percent of the 
communities do not participate because they cannot afford to 
participate. It costs them 25 percent of the total cost the first year; 
more in the second; and after that, they are entirely on their own. 
They simply cannot afford it. 

[[Page H15240]]

  What we do in our program is make them put up 10 percent, and they 
can use the money for cops, if they want, or for cop cars, if they need 
that, or for other things.
  COPS is a discretionary grant program, so communities cannot predict 
whether they will receive funds or not. And the COPS program that the 
President wants, and here is the rub, requires a whole brand new 
Washington bureaucracy. In fiscal 1996, 236 positions; $26 million. 
They have rented a 10-floor, 51,000 square foot building where the rent 
alone costs $1.5 million.
  The block grant program, which we put in the bill, corrects all of 
those problems, but the President objects because Washington knows 
best.
  So for those reasons, not spending enough on lower priority programs, 
a dispute over who gets credit for putting more police on the streets, 
the President has vetoed the bill, the biggest crime fighting 
appropriation in the Nation's history, putting at risk the jobs of some 
200,000 Federal employees.
  I wish the President would get over this pique, this political pique. 
We are not asking him to vacate Air Force one by the rear door. All we 
are saying is sign this bill; we sent you a good one.
  Every day these crime fighting funds are delayed because of the 
President's veto is a day wasted in the fight against violent crime, 
drugs, illegal immigration and violence against women.
  I regret the President's veto. I regret the fact that the White House 
never saw fit to sit down with us to try to work out an acceptable 
bill. I regret the fact that 200,000 Federal employees continue to be 
at risk of furloughs because the President puts his priorities ahead of 
theirs.
  But the bill has been vetoed. The only alternative we have, Mr. 
Speaker, is to send the bill back to the committee and start the 
process over. Congress did its job on this bill. It passed the 
appropriations for Commerce, Justice, State, the Federal Judiciary, and 
others for fiscal 1996.
  There is no bill in place now, not because the Congress did not act, 
it is purely because the President acted to kill a bill that would have 
funded the greatest crime fighting era ever in the Nation's history.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has vetoed the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, 
Justice, State and Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill. 
As everyone knows, this is the third appropriations bill the President 
has vetoed this week, and his action on this bill is not unexpected. As 
a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is anything but unexpected.
  When the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary conference report was 
on the floor 2 weeks ago, it was clear that the President was going to 
veto it. In fact, when this bill passed the House in July, the 
President clearly indicated that he would veto any version of the bill 
that did not fund the Cops on the Beat Program in its already-
authorized last-year form.
  The President has, from the beginning of this process this year, 
indicated his priorities for the bill, and the bill Congress sent to 
him does not fund those priorities.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a perfunctory motion we debate this 
afternoon. It is absolutely perfunctory. We should not even be here 
debating this motion to send this bill back to the committee. We ought 
to be debating a continuing resolution so that we can get the 
Government up and operating, so that we can get these agencies funded, 
so that we can get this COPS program funded.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 8,000 additional community policemen, on top 
of the 26,000 that the President has already gotten out during the last 
year. There are 8,000 new cops that have been appointed, but they 
cannot be funded because this bill has not passed, or because we have 
not passed a continuing resolution while we debate the policy 
priorities that are contained in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no reason, there is no reason that these 
Justice Department programs, that these crime-fighting initiatives that 
were started under President Clinton's program 2 years ago cannot now 
be funded. We could be operating under a continuing resolution. No 
reason why we could not be operating under a continuing resolution if 
we were not trying to use the appropriations process as leverage to 
bring the President to tow.
  Now, that is what the majority is doing. They are saying, oh, we are 
not funding all of these crime-fighting program because the President 
has vetoed this bill. This bill was supposed to be passed the 1st of 
October. This bill, and six other appropriations bills that are not 
passed, were supposed to be passed 3 months ago. They are not passed, 
and now we are sending it back to committee to try to rework the bill 
to accommodate the President's concerns. In the meantime, unless we 
pass a continuing resolution, which is what we ought to be debating 
here, unless we pass that continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, these 
agencies are going to be continued to be shut down.

  The point is, we could be funding these programs right now if we were 
debating passing a CR and going forward, funding them while we debate 
these policy priorities and while we consider the reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let us move forward with the CR. The President was 
granted applications for 8,000 additional policemen to go into every 
community, every State, every congressional district across this 
Nation. Last year we appointed 26,000. We have 8,000 more ready to go 
as soon as this money is released. It can be released with a continuing 
resolution.
  If the majority wants to debate the priorities, if it wants to debate 
block grants, fine, let us debate block grants. Let us debate 
priorities before this bill passes. Let us allow these policemen to get 
on the street by debating a CR, getting a CR out and passed so we can 
implement some of these crime-fighting programs that the majority 
alludes to.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the great chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my great chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the President vetoed this bill, but it was no surprise 
to the President what was in this bill. He has known about this bill 
for 3 months, because it passed the House in July. The President has 
known the numbers that were in this bill since then.
  He has known that this is a real crime bill; that this bill provides 
$14.6 billion to fight crime, which is 20 percent more than last year's 
level. He has known that it provides 25 percent more for immigration 
initiatives than last year's level, and 57 percent more for State and 
local law enforcement than last year's level, plus it gives State and 
local law enforcement officials more opportunity to determine where the 
money goes, and it requires less money up front from them than that 
COPS Program that we have heard so much about.
  This bill gives States 285 percent more for State criminal alien 
assistance, and it includes 573 percent more for violence against 
women's programs. We have heard that there is a great need for violence 
against women's programs because of what battered women around this 
country are telling us. This bill answers their pleas. It answers their 
call. And the President crassly vetoed this bill yesterday, a few days 
before Christmas, right on the heels of his veto of the VA-HUD and 
Interior bills.
  If he had not vetoed those 3 bills, 620,000 Federal employees would 
be employed today without worry about whether or not they are going to 
get their paycheck at Christmas.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good bill, and it should have been 
signed, but the President could remedy this. He could come back with an 
overall comprehensive package that puts us on a balanced budget by the 
year 2002, that includes whatever extra funding that he may want, as 
long as he can find it in some other area in the entitlement programs. 
He can present to the American 

[[Page H15241]]
people the proposal that he can govern, that he can work with this 
Congress, if only he will sit down to the table with our negotiators. 
He has promised he would, he has promised he is for a 7-year balanced 
budget, as scored by CBO, but all we have heard is rhetoric.
  When the President decides to get serious, this bill or some 
variation will be signed into law.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we are back to the bill that has come from the nicest 
subcommittee chairman in the Congress with the lousiest bill. Here we 
are again.
  I guess the Republicans have to say I believe the President now. He 
told them in the summer; he told them in the fall; he told them when 
the bill was being debated, I will veto this bill. And the Republicans 
gave him their advice, which is their responsibility, and now he has 
vetoed the bill. They believe him now.
  Now, where is the continuing resolution? I think the gentleman from 
West Virginia is absolutely correct. Look at what we are doing here, 
gentlemen. Over and above the COPS Program, we are eliminating the Drug 
Initiative Program. I am glad the chairman of the subcommittee saw fit 
not to mention it. It is on the first page of the veto, if he will take 
a look at it.
  We are getting rid of or crippling the Legal Services Corporation, 
the program that would represent people who are indigent and cannot 
otherwise afford these services.
  We have a rider in the bill that the gentleman did not mention, a 
moratorium on the Endangered Species Act, which has nothing whatsoever 
to do with the bill. I guess the gentleman does not know where that one 
came from.

                              {time}  1245

  So, I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a very serious 
veto, well-anticipated. We knew it was coming. Why they would want to 
take away the Death Penalty Resource Center out of the legal services 
programs, I do not know.
  Mr. Speaker, when race relationships are at an all-time high in terms 
of misunderstanding, what do they do with the Community Relations 
Service in the Department of Justice? Wipe it out.
  Now, we come to the floor belaboring the fact that the President did 
precisely what he said he was going to do. Do not be ashamed. Look, my 
colleagues have been there before. They have done it all summer. I 
still say that the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee here is 
still one of the nicest guys in the Congress, with the lousiest bills 
that ever come to the floor.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should thank the 
gentleman or not; at least a half a thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, today the lives of women and children are 
in great danger. I must remind my colleagues that the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Act contains critical funding for the 
Violence Against Women Act, legislation that has had the overwhelming 
support of the Congress and the President.
  Without these monies, we will not have desperately needed training 
programs for those who are on the frontlines--our police and judges--in 
fighting domestic violence, rape, and other crimes against women.
  We will not have the funds to strengthen efforts in our local 
communities by our local law enforcement agencies and by our 
prosecutors to combat violent crimes against women. States and local 
government cannot do this work without the funds in VAWA.
  We will not have the funds to pay for victims services for women and 
children who are in danger and in desperate circumstances.
  In short, the progress we have made in the struggle to end domestic 
violence and violent crimes against women is in jeopardy. Our States 
are depending on these funds to proceed with much needed programs in 
our communities all across our country.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the women and children of this country 
to be caught up in the crossfire of the budget battles.
  We cannot leave this House without ensuring that we stand firm on our 
commitment to the women and families of this Nation. We must reach 
agreement on this vital spending bill. The women and children of this 
country are depending on us.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself, and I would 
like to ask the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] if she would 
engage me in a colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman, she was not 
intending to imply that because the President vetoed this bill that was 
sent to him almost 2 months after the time it was supposed to be sent 
to him, that, for example, they money that is in here, the $175 million 
for the violence against women will not be funded. The gentlewoman is 
not suggesting that, is she?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, we just 
cannot tell. Right now, it is in total jeopardy.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, how is it in jeopardy? 
This bill is going to come back to committee. No matter what happens to 
this bill, for my part and the majority's part, no matter what happens 
to this bill, that money is going to be there.
  The President was very supportive of this. That was in his request. 
The violence against women money will be in there. We should not be 
scaring people out there and suggesting that that money is not going to 
be there because the President vetoed the bill. The President vetoed 
the bill for a lot of policy reasons. That money will be there, and we 
ought not attempt to scare people.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
there are a lot of promises and assumptions that we feel in this 
legislative arena and we find out that may not happen. We want to be 
assured that it is signed so that we do have the money.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I hope I have 
given the gentlewoman a little assurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, why in the world are we here in the middle 
of December without this bill passed, with the Government shut down? 
All of this was supposed to have been out of the way by the first of 
October. And through no fault of the minority party, here we are.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority simply does not know how to run the 
Congress on time, on schedule, to get our basic work done, our basic 
responsibilities taken care of.
  In this instance, as in the case of so many of the appropriations 
bills, we are 2\1/2\ months late because the majority insisted on 
jamming a bunch of controversial policy matters into bills to deal with 
appropriations matters, where they have absolutely no business, and 
then getting hung up with the Senate when they could not get any 
agreement on how to do this.
  Mr. Speaker, we wasted months on the contract. We are late in getting 
the appropriations bills done here. We are 2\1/2\ months into fiscal 
1996, with the Government shut down, going through this drill.
  We should be ashamed of ourselves. Any majority party that took 
seriously its basic responsibilities to run this place, to get our work 
done, would not be bringing a bill like this up now with the Government 
in chaos. We would be getting a continuing resolution done that at 
least acknowledged the failure of the majority party to be able to get 
its basic work accomplished on time.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand ready to see a continuing resolution, to get 
this Government back on its feet promptly this week before Christmas. 
It is a shame that we are here in this kind of dysfunctional state of 
mind and state of inaction while the good men and 

[[Page H15242]]
women of this country, who have a right to expect more of their 
Government than this kind of behavior, sit out there looking at us 
aghast at our inability to get our basic responsibilities accomplished.
  Mr. Speaker, let us dismiss this particular distraction; get back to 
appropriation bills that are true to the traditions of this place; get 
a continuing resolution through; and, get this Government on its feet.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Staten Island, NY [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
disappointment with President Clinton's veto of this bill. This bill 
included full funding for the Violence Against Women Act; $175 million 
to protect women and children from abuse. That is an increase of 573 
percent from last year.
  Mr. Speaker, regardless of why the President vetoed this bill, when 
he did, he canceled the implementation of this funding. In the next 5 
minutes, 1 woman will be raped in America and 14 more will be beaten by 
their husbands and boyfriends. We need to start as soon as possible to 
get money and programs to our State and local governments for things 
such as law enforcement and prosecution grants; court appointed special 
advocate programs for victims of child abuse; training for judicial 
personnel and practitioners; $28 million to go for arrest policies to 
encourage local governments to deal with domestic violence as a serious 
criminal offense; $1.5 million for a national stalkers and domestic 
violence reduction program; $7 million for rural domestic and child 
abuse enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, these are terrible tragedies that are existing every 
minute throughout this country in every corner of this country. We can 
go a long way toward stopping this as soon as the President will not 
hold this funding program hostage to the veto of the Commerce bill. I 
hope that he sees the error of his ways and implements his cooperation 
to get this money to the States.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman again suggests that money in here has 
been canceled for this program for the year. Is that what the 
gentlewoman is implying?
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am sure I 
was clear to say that when the President vetoed this bill, he canceled 
the expenditure of these funds until he finds a bill that he wants to 
sign.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, but the gentlewoman is 
not suggesting that money will not be in this program one this bill is 
processed and signed by the President?
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, with 
all due respect, if the gentleman knows what the President has in his 
mind these days, he is smarter that the rest of America.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, will the gentlewoman acknowledge 
that she was engaged in a bipartisan effort to get this money in the 
bill, and it was supported by the President?
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I appreciate the cooperation given from the Democratic side of the 
aisle in this funding. I am only sorry that the President did not enter 
into that spirit of cooperation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman acknowledge that if 
we pass a continuing resolution here on this bill, that we would be 
able to immediately fund this program while we go forward and debate 
these other issues, and we could immediately fund it, get everybody 
back to work and get back them back to work now and pass the rest of 
the programs and the violence against women programs? Does the 
gentlewoman agree with that?
  Ms. MOLINARI. No, absolutely not.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentlewoman does not agree that if we get a 
continuing resolution passed, we would be able to do that?
  Ms. MOLINARI. At last year's level, which is a significant diminution 
of what we are appropriating in this Congress at 573 percent more this 
year. That is a tremendous difference.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the issue today is not this motion that is 
before us which is being debated, but rather that we ought to be 
debating a continuing resolution so that we can keep this Government 
open and we can talk about the Commerce, State, and Justice bill, and 
the Cops on the Beat Program.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make just one point in that the President in my 
view was correct to veto the Commerce, State and Justice bill for, 
particularly in my view, for the Cops on the Beat Program and 
dismantling it.
  But the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] both know about the President's commitment 
to the Violence Against Women's Act, and that if we got this Government 
open and running, that that money would flow and the commitment is 
absolutely there.
  Mr. Speaker, they were part of a bipartisan effort to put it 
together, and anything that they get up to say about it was a partisan 
on the their part today.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that I strongly support what the President 
did on Commerce, State and Justice, specifically because I oppose 
dismantling the community policing initiative. It is a crime fighting 
program that has worked and one that we ought to continue, and it has 
lowered the crime rate in this Nation tremendously.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers have already indicated, 
the President indicated a long time ago that he was going to veto this 
bill, and he indicated that repeatedly because of his concern that this 
bill rips up his Cops on the Beat Program and a number of other 
concerns listed in the veto message. That is not the issue here today.
  The program with what is happening here today is that we are debating 
a perfunctory motion to which absolutely no one is opposed. This motion 
is simply to send the bill to committee. Everybody is going to support 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting time on this meaningless motion, what 
we ought to be doing, as the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] has indicated, is bringing a clean continuing resolution to 
this floor to keep the Government open so that all programs, including 
these programs, can continue to function.
  What is rally at stake here is exactly what the gentleman from West 
Virginia has indicated. What is happening is that the Republican 
leadership of this House is trying to gain leverage on their 
discussions with the President on the 7-year budget by shutting down 
Government and holding hostage all of these programs and all of the 
people running them until the President caves in to the demands of the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here was summed up by the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations in a press conference he held after 
President Clinton signed the defense bill. When the President signed 
the defense bill, my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], then said as follows: ``The President is at our mercy. If 
the Government shuts down on December 15 and 300,000 people are again 
out of work, most of the people going out will be his people. I think 
he's going to care more about that than we do.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is apparent today. It is very apparent that there 
is very little concern on the part of the majority party leadership for 
the individual workers in this country who are being crunched because 
of a power game between the White House and the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, the leverage games ought to stop. I know full well that 
if those leverage games were not going on, the subcommittee chairman of 
this subcommittee and the ranking Democrat could work out these 
differences in half an hour, because they are both good men. I know 
that would happen.

[[Page H15243]]

  The fact is, this debate is a waste of time. For any of our citizens 
who happen to be watching it today, it is a sad day in my view because 
it once again demonstrates that we are mistaking motion for movement.

                              {time}  1300

  We should not be wasting our time on a meaningless motion like this.
  I would urge the Speaker of the House to immediately bring a 
continuing resolution to the floor so that this charade can stop, so 
that Government can stay open, so that Government agencies can provide 
the services to which the taxpayers are entitled, and stop the 
political game.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to say that I truly believe that there is probably no other 
illustration better than this bill today of the differences between 
Republicans and Democrats, fundamentally about our approach to 
government and fundamentally about the revolution that is taking place 
with the new majority. We are not doing business as usual, and some, I 
can understand it, on the other side of the aisle would like to see us 
do it the traditional way.
  Yes, there is authorizing legislation that normally would come 
through the authorizing committee to the floor in this bill, and, yes, 
we are doing some major changes, different from what the President 
wants, and, yes, we know that we cannot succeed in some of these votes 
up and down with a straight ability to override a Presidential veto 
because we do not have the votes to do that.
  But we are determined in our revolution this year in making the 
change to the new majority to do what the public wants us to do, and 
that is to make a difference, to really change the way we fight crime, 
among other things, and the way our Government responds to things.
  What this bill does and what this legislation on crime fighting does 
is to do that. It, first of all, takes a program or two passed by the 
Democrats in the last Congress that provided Washington business-as-
usual grants out there for more police officers and for all kinds of 
so-called prevention programs that governments would have to apply for 
and do it the way Washington said, takes all of those programs and 
rolls them into one single $10-billion grant program, block-grant 
program, for which local cities and counties would get the money to 
fight crime as they see fit. If they wanted to hire new policemen, they 
could. If they wanted to do a drug treatment program, they could. If 
they wanted to use that money for a new piece of equipment, they could 
do that. Whatever they wanted to do; what is good for Portland, OR, is 
not good for Charleston. One size does not fit all. That is a very big 
difference between Republicans and Democrats.
  We do not believe Washington should be dictating how to fight crime 
or many other things to local governments. They ought to be making 
those decisions, and the President's veto is an indication he does not 
agree with us. He agrees with the typical business-as-usual liberal 
Democrats who like big government in Washington.
  The second thing in this bill about fighting crime we seem to 
overlook that is very important, maybe more important in some ways than 
getting 100,000 cops and changing the way we do business around here 
and so on, is the fact that we have in this bill a change in the way we 
go about the incentive program for building new prisons to try to 
encourage States, if they meet the goal of requiring violent repeat 
offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, then they 
can get prison grant money. Many States are changing their laws to 
build these prisons. We have prisoners today getting out, serving only 
a third of their sentences and committing violent crimes over and over 
again.
  We ought to take away the key and throw it away and do away with it.
  The last piece in this bill is prison litigation reform. The 
President vetoed that, too. This bill should not have been vetoed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________