[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H23-H33]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Rogers moves to discharge the Committee on Appropriations from 
further consideration of the veto message 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was referred back to the Committee on 
Appropriations when the veto message was received from the President. 
Consequently, any effort to override the veto must await a discharge of 
the bill from the committee back to the floor, and consequently, that 
is the purpose of my motion.
  I think the parties are prepared to yield back the time which 
otherwise would be allocated to us on the motion to discharge, so that 
we can get directly to the main motion. So if there is no request for 
time on the other side, I am prepared to yield back the time on this 
side on the motion.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. No objection, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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.
  
[[Page H24]]


DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
 AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF 
                THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104-149)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President of the United States 
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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding.
  The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan].


                             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 veto message of the President on 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, just a few minutes ago, the President took to the 
airwaves to say that we have workers in the Justice Department that are 
not able to go to work; we have workers in the Commerce Department that 
have been laid off; we have workers in the Federal Judiciary and the 
State Department around the world unable to go to work. He says it is 
because the Congress shut down the Government.
  I am going to make the President a real deal here today. We are going 
to give the President a chance to put these workers back to work.
  We have heard speakers in the well of this House, for the last 
several weeks now, saying we need to put these workers back to work. I 
am going to make you a real deal today. We are going to give you a 
chance to vote to put these workers back to work, because today we are 
going to give you a chance to vote to override the President's veto of 
this bill and put the workers back to work.
  Make no mistake, the reason the workers in these departments are not 
working today is not because the Congress did not pass a bill. We sent 
the President this appropriations bill for these departments several 
weeks ago. The President chose to lay them off. The President chose to 
close the Government for these agencies. The President chose to say to 
the American people, I am going to shut these agencies down because I 
do not like the bill the Congress gave to me.
  Well, I am saying to Members of this body today, here is your chance. 
You have been telling the folks back home, if I had a chance, I would 
put the workers back to work. If I had a vote, I would vote to require 
the workers to go back to work and to reinstate their pay.
  Here is your chance. Here it is, right square before you. The vote on 
the bill to override this veto by the President of the spending bill 
for these agencies is square before you. A ``yes'' vote will send these 
workers back to work.
  A ``yes'' vote to override the veto will mean that the guards in the 
prisons will also receive their pay, even today, as the prisoners are 
receiving their benefit checks. It is true. Today, prisoners are 
receiving money and the guards in the Federal prisons are not. Is that 
not something, Mr. President?
  Well, today you have a chance. Let us pay the guards in the prisons 
as well as the prisoners, Mr. Speaker. Let us put them all back to 
work. Vote ``yes'' to override the President's veto.
  Some of the most important agencies of the Government are shut down 
because of the President's veto. The Justice Department, the FBI, the 
Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Attorneys, the Federal prisons, 
all law enforcement agencies in the Justice Department are laid off or 
working without pay because the President chose to thumb his nose at 
the bill we sent to him.
  We bring to the floor the President's veto of the Commerce, State, 
Justice appropriations bill. You get a chance today to put more than 
200,000 employees back to work and to end the crisis of the government 
to these major parts of our Government.

                              {time}  1600

  The bill we sent to the President is a good bill. It is tough on 
crime and even tougher on spending. The bill provides the largest 
amount of funding ever provided in the Nation's history for the number 
one domestic priority, and that is fighting crime. But even more 
important at this moment, it represents our best opportunity to put 
over 200,000 Federal employees back to work, with pay, not just for a 
day, not just for a week, but for the rest of the fiscal year.
  This is what Members of this body can do, while the negotiators are 
down at the White House trying to work out a deal on a continuing 
resolution for a few days, here is the chance to short-circuit all of 
that. Here is the chance to override all of that.
  Our immigration patrol, the Border Patrol, fighting illegal 
immigration, laid off. Drug Enforcement Administration, fighting the 
Nation's scourge of drugs, laid off. State Department personnel around 
the world issuing passports, visas and the like, guarding America's 
diplomacy efforts around the world, laid off. Prosecuting criminals in 
the Federal courts, laid off. Here is the chance. Members have been 
saying in the well of this House in speech after speech, day after day, 
week after week, ``Give me a chance to vote and I'll put these workers 
back to work.'' Here it is, square before you.
  Vote ``no'' and you continue this shutdown. Vote ``yes,'' and you put 
our workers back to work. New Border Patrol agents, new FBI employees, 
new Drug Enforcement agents will be hired and put to work in addition 
to the ones already hired.
  The fundamental question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the President's 
objections to this bill outweigh the harm caused by the shutdown of 
these departments and agencies, harm to Federal employees and their 
families and to the American people that has resulted from the 
President's veto of this bill.
  In my view, there is no reason, no valid reason, to support the veto 
and vote against this effort to override the veto. Of course we have 
differences with the President. But they relate to just a handful of 
programs in this bill, and certainly do not justify shutting down these 
agencies.
  The President vetoed the bill, with one exception, because it does 
not provide enough money for several programs funded in the bill. And 
what compelling need caused him to prevent the Nation's war against 
crime from being funded and put 200,000 Federal paychecks in jeopardy? 
Listen to this. This is why: No funding for corporate welfare, he says. 
The Advanced Technology Program, he vetoed the bill because of that. 
That is corporate welfare. I thought we were out to eliminate it. 
Certainly the bill did. The President says, ``No, I don't like that.''
  Another reason why he vetoed the bill, Mr. Speaker, listen to this 
one. There is no funding for the Ounce of Prevention Council, $2 
million, an extension of the Vice President's office.
  Another reason he vetoed the bill was lack of funding for 
international organizations, like the International Office of 
Epizootics, Mr. Speaker.
  Is that enough to shut down the Government? Well, the President said 
so when he vetoed our bill. He would like to put more money in the 
United Nations and international organizations, and that is why he 
vetoed the bill.
  There may not be as much funding as he or even some of us wanted for 
individual programs. But we have set priorities, we had to, priorities 
we thought were the President's as well, the war on crime and drugs and 
the fight against illegal immigration. On no scale of right and wrong 
can you justify shutting down 3 departments, the Federal courts, 20 
independent agencies, and depriving more than 200,000 Federal employees 
of paychecks because a handful of programs are not funded at a high 
enough level to merit 

[[Page H25]]
the President's signature. Any yet that is exactly what happened.
  Look at the harm being done by the President's veto and the shutting 
down of these departments. Two-thirds of the funding in the bill, 
nearly $18 billion, is aimed at putting criminals behind bars. The bill 
contains $14.6 billion for law enforcement programs at the Department 
of Justice, a 19-percent increase over 1995 funding, including $3.6 
billion for State and local law enforcement to give them the resources 
to fight crime where it counts, on our streets back home. That is a 57-
percent increase over last year.
  It contains $2.5 billion, an $895 million increase, to combat illegal 
immigration and secure our Nation's borders, $146 million more than the 
President requested, including 3,000 more INS personnel, 1,000 more 
Border Patrol agents on the border.
  The bill includes $500 million for California, Texas, Florida, New 
York, and other States most impacted by criminal aliens, a $370 million 
increase, and the President's veto is telling those States, tough luck.
  It includes $175 million for violence against women programs, 7 times 
more than provided in 1995, the full amount of the President's request, 
one of the major initiatives of the bill, and now because of this veto 
those programs are sitting at zero.
  This is the largest crime-fighting budget in the Nation's history 
which the President vetoed.
  If you cannot justify shutting down these agencies because of funding 
levels for a handful of programs and you cannot justify the veto 
because of the harm it does to the Nation's fight against crime, what 
does it come down to, Mr. Speaker? It comes down to one policy 
difference. Instead of funding the President's COPS Program, the bill 
provides a $1.9 billion grant, full funding, to provide local 
communities the resources to hire every single policeman on the beat 
that he has proposed, and then some. It comes down to this, Mr. 
Speaker: The issue of who controls the program to help local 
communities fight crime--the President's Washington-based one-size-
fits-all program which half the communities cannot afford, or the block 
grant approach in this bill to empower local communities to decide what 
they need most to fight crime in their judgment, tailor made to their 
community.
  This bill provides a better way. The President was willing to block 
the largest crime-fighting bill in the Nation's history and shut down 3 
departments, the Federal courts, 20 independent agencies and more than 
200,000 employees because he did not get his way on the COPS Program.
  Now the House has the opportunity to overturn that decision, to put 
200,000 employees back to work for the rest of the fiscal year, to 
reopen Justice, State, the Federal judiciary, to put the war against 
crime back on track to fight illegal immigration, drug abuse and 
violence against women.
  I urge my colleagues to weigh the balance. The choice is to reopen 
the business in the Departments of Justice, State and Commerce, the 
Federal courts and 20 agencies, provide paychecks and jobs to 200,000 
employees, fund the largest anticrime bill in history, or to shut them 
down, over a handful of funding issues and a matter of who gets credit 
for hiring police on the beat. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the choice 
is plain. Let us put them back to work. Vote ``yes'' to put America's 
workers back to work.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we find ourselves once again spending time on the 
floor of the House taking on an action which will not advance the 
process of completing the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills. We are 
way behind in them. They are way past due. They should have been passed 
in the first session, and here we are at the beginning of the second 
session of the 104th Congress and we do not have our appropriation 
bills done.
  The Commerce-State-Justice bill was vetoed by the President and 
received by the House on December 19. It was referred to committee at 
that time, and today, rather than presenting to the House a bill that 
could be signed into law and one that ends the shutdown of all the 
agencies funded in this bill, now in the 19th day, we are debating a 
veto override.
  Well, I will vote to sustain the President's veto today, Mr. Speaker. 
At the time the conference report was passed, I indicated that if a 
vote to override occurred, that I would support the President. My 
position is based on the belief that the most constructive thing to be 
doing now is working out our differences on this bill in a rational 
way, without the Government shutdown being used by the majority in the 
House of Representatives as leverage in these policy debates. Indeed, 
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a pretty clear analogy between just good 
old hostage-taking and the strategy being pursued by the majority.
  The similarity is that both in the conventional hostage-taking 
situation and in the situation where we allow Federal workers to be 
laid off and not employed and do not pass a continuing resolution, 
there is an irrationality that is common on both situations. That 
irrationality is this: In this case by the majority here in the House 
it is the presumption that by holding these hostages, by keeping these 
Federal workers unemployed, keeping them out, that that is going to 
affect the policy debate; that the President of the United States is 
going to be brought to heel on these issues because these Federal 
employees and all of the Americans they serve are being held hostage in 
the debate.
  That is an irrationality, Mr. Speaker. It is an irrationality in the 
conventional hostage situation; it is an irrationality here. There is 
no relationship between these Federal workers going back to work and 
solving these policy questions.
  We could pass a continuing resolution here today in a shorter period 
of time than we take to debate this veto override, get the workers back 
to work and then sit down in a rational way and solve these policy 
issues.
  The Government shutdown in its 19th day is furloughing some 280,000 
Federal Government workers, holding them hostage, and keeping 480,000 
excepted workers on the job without pay.
  Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Senate did a sensible thing, a rational 
thing. It passed a clean continuing resolution lasting until January 
12, giving us some time to work on these issues. I believe the quote is 
``enough is enough,'' were the words of the Senate majority leader. In 
fact, he used the word ``pawns'' to describe those employees caught in 
the middle of this fight that they have nothing to do with and no 
reason to be involved in.
  These people want to go back to work, and we should be addressing 
that situation today with a simple continuing resolution. Various 
Republican Members have been quoted as indicating that the current 
shutdown was having no significant effects across the country and 
should perhaps be extended. I think the statement, the whole idea is 
irresponsible and I patently disagree, Mr. Speaker.
  At the Justice Department, most of the law enforcement personnel have 
been declared essential, but as of this week they will only receive 
half a paycheck. What a way to ring in the new year. All FBI training, 
all Federal Bureau of Investigation training of State and local law 
enforcement has stopped.
  My good friend and chairman of the committee alluded to the COPS 
Program, Mr. Speaker, a wonderfully successful program. I know there 
are some other speakers that are going to be speaking in greater detail 
about the success of the COPS Program, a program to get community 
police, federally assisted community police, out on the beat.

                              {time}  1615

  To date, there are 31,000 cops out on the beat as a result of this 
program, doing good work, good reviews, real results in reducing crime 
in the neighborhoods in which they are working.
  Mr. Speaker, 7,688 more policemen could be added right now to the 
beat in communities all across this country if the money were 
available, if we would simply pass a continuing resolution. That's 
7,688 more policemen out there fighting crime.
  Mr. Speaker, also vendors who are supplying food to prisons are 
continuing to deliver that food, but they are not being paid. How long 
can that continue before vendors either refuse to deliver more food or 
go bankrupt? What a reputation for the Federal Government to get, 
reneging on its obligations, not paying small businessmen, 

[[Page H26]]
small business women out there trying to make it work for their 
services. What would this mean to the prisons if that would happen? No 
food, riots. Mr. Speaker, it is not a pretty picture.
  More than 200,000 Americans, Mr. Speaker, are now waiting for 
passports. That is not in effect. Our friends suggest that these 
workers are unessential? This affects students trying to begin school 
overseas, individuals who have job offers, and many people who have 
nonrefundable tickets for overseas travel. The inconveniences are 
tremendous.
  Local employers who process visa applications are required to come to 
work but cannot do their jobs once they get there.
  Funds to pay for the massive State Department-run worldwide 
communication system will run out of funding the end of this week. That 
is the heart of our ability to communicate with our posts around the 
world. Activities to facilitate American businesses around the world 
are being hampered with the nongranting of more than 30 export licenses 
a day worth over $30 million to U.S. businesses, blocking more than $92 
million a day in export licenses for defense articles and dual-use 
technology items.
  The release of government-generated statistics is being held up that 
is affecting business decisions, and more than 260 small businesses 
which receive an average of $40 million in financing guarantees from 
the SBA are not receiving those guarantees, Mr. Speaker.
  The impact is real. It is affecting the ability of the Federal 
Government to provide essential services. Keeping Federal employees off 
the job is just not being mean-spirited to Federal employees, reducing 
and eliminating their paychecks, it is meaning that we are not 
delivering services to the American people across a broad sector, and 
it is patently irresponsible. These are the impacts of the shutdown, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Clearly, we ought to be working today to get the Government open. It 
is simple to do it, pass the CR and not wasting time on a veto override 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky. 
This is, indeed, an opportunity for a real deal.
  Today we can vote to override the President. We can solve many of the 
problems we heard the President complain about just a little while ago 
on television. He said the Congress is keeping many Federal employees 
out of work.
  Well, the fact is that 620,000 Federal employees have not returned to 
work, because the three appropriations bills that provide the funding 
for those 620,000 employees were vetoed by the President of the United 
States, the same gentleman who was on television just a little while 
ago complaining about the lack of appropriations bills.
  The Congress did its job in those three bills. We sent the President 
the Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary bill, on which we are 
considering the veto here today; the Interior bill; and the VA-HUD 
bill. The President chose to veto them and put those 620,000 Federal 
employees on the street without paychecks for the Christmas holidays. 
In fact, he vetoed the bills just about a week before Christmas.
  The American people can thank the President for the closure of the 
national parks and museums. They can thank the President for delaying 
Government services. The Federal employees can thank the President for 
reductions in paychecks, and while they are thanking people, they might 
also consider the Labor, Health and Human Services bill which has 
passed the House of Representatives, went over to the other body, the 
U.S. Senate, and it got lost there. There are 143,000 people employed 
with the funding in the Labor-HHS bill that is being filibustered by 
the Democrats in the Senate. It cannot move, because every time they 
bring the bill up, the Democrats in the Senate filibuster it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman is reminded that 
he is not to characterize the actions of the Senate.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I did not characterize it. I just simply 
pointed out they filibustered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not allowed to characterize 
the actions or inaction of the Senate.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for 
pointing that out.
  Mr. Speaker, I might add that on this bill alone, which is the real 
crime bill, if the President had not vetoed it, if he were sincere in 
his concerns that he expressed on television a little while ago, $14.6 
billion would have been spent to fight crime, an increase of 20 percent 
over last year. Mr. Speaker, 25 percent more would have been spent on 
immigration initiatives, 57 percent more would have been spent on State 
and local law enforcement, 285 percent more than last year would have 
been spent on State criminal alien assistance, and 573 percent more 
would have been spent for violence against women programs.
  So let us not hear that the Congress is responsible for the shutdown. 
When the President chose to veto these bills, he knew it was going to 
hang us up over the Christmas holidays, and he know these 620,000 
people would hit the bricks for the Christmas holidays. Our hearts go 
out to these people sincerely. We are sorry. We do not want to hold 
them hostage. But the President committed that he was going to meet our 
demands to balance the budget and save our children and our 
grandchildren from total economic catastrophe. He has reneged on that 
promise. He has not met us halfway.
  We need to override this bill so that we can put these people back to 
work. This is our opportunity. If you do not take advantage of this 
opportunity, then, in fact, do not talk about how people are being 
hurt.
  The fact is we have a real chance to put all of those people back to 
work by overriding this veto, and by overriding the veto on the 
Interior bill, and by overriding the veto on the VA-HUD bill, and, for 
that matter, we can put the people to work who are funded in the Labor, 
Health and Human Services bill by getting the other body to do what 
they are supposed to do.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of this bill is hardly 
new news to people. The President made clear his intentions to veto 
this bill in July if it passed without continuing the President's 
program under which 31,000 cops on the beat positions were filled in 
communities all throughout the country because of action of the 
Congress in the previous year.
  So there is no reason to be suddenly shocked or chagrined by the 
President's simply doing what he told us many months ago he would do if 
this bill did not pass in its present form.
  I think we need to really be frank about what is happening here 
today. What is happening here today is that we are going through a 
series of meaningless exercises, pretending to have an effort to 
override the previous veto that was considered by the House. Now we are 
going through the charade of pretending that we are going to try to 
override the President's veto on this bill because the House does not 
have any other legislative business to perform. That is what is going 
on, and that is what the taxpayers ought to know.
  What ought to be on the floor today is the motion to continue the 
bipartisan action that was taken in the Senate yesterday by Mr. Dole 
and Mr. Daschle, when, on a bipartisan basis, they passed a resolution 
to open up the entire Government. That is the motion that should be 
before us today. Instead, we face the ridiculous spectacle of first 
seeing Government workers paid for work that they were not allowed to 
do, then we see Government workers being forced to do work for which 
they are not yet being paid, and the Congress sits here and allows that 
to continue.

[[Page H27]]

  Do not kid anybody. The President did not shut down the Government. 
The President exercised his constitutional right to veto a bill which 
he thought was haywire, and the President has asked on every occasion 
that the Congress pass legislation to keep the Government open while 
differences are being resolved.
  The Congress has shut down the Government because the Speaker and the 
Republican majority have made a conscious decision that they want to 
gain leverage over the President of the United States to force him to 
make cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and education that he simply is not 
willing to do, and that is why the Government is shut down.
  What I really believe ought to happen--instead of this meaningless 
consumption of time here today on this veto override that is going 
nowhere--what ought to happen is we ought to take note of the quote in 
the newspaper this morning by the Senate majority leader, who said, ``I 
can't see any sense in what we have been doing. I would hope we would 
have quick action in the House. People have been gone from their jobs 
long enough. Enough is enough.''

  I want to say to my moderate friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle, sooner or later you are going to have to decide whether you are 
Gingrich Republicans or Dole Republicans, and that time might as well 
be today. Because what ought to happen here today is that you ought to 
bring on to this floor--and only you can do it, only you have the 
votes--you ought to bring onto the floor a resolution which will open 
up all of the Government so that Government can stay open while we 
continue to work on the other differences between us.
  After that resolution is passed, then what ought to happen it that 
appropriation bills ought to be separated from the other debate going 
on about long-term budget policy. We ought to reach a bipartisan, 
reasonable consensus on the dollar levels in those appropriation bills. 
Those bills should be stripped of extraneous language, and then we 
should try to pass those compromise appropriation measures.
  We are supposed to be public servants. We are supposed to be looking 
for ways to provide service to the public, not to deny that service, 
and yet by your refusal to follow the Senate lead, to follow Senator 
Dole's lead in opening up the Government, you are insisting upon 
denying to the public services for which they have already paid.
  What you have here, in my view, is an incredible display of 
arrogance.
  We are being told that the majority in this House believes that their 
political ideology is more important to them than providing the 
services to the taxpayers who we are all supposed to serve.
  What we ought to do is, on a bipartisan basis, the same as the Senate 
did: pass the Dole motion and get on with the business of opening up 
the Government. Open up the Government, that is what we are paid to do, 
and we should not be paid until we do it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula], a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, very simply, today's Post carries a story about 40,000 
people being laid off by AT&T. The other day it was reported 3 million 
jobs have been lost through downsizing.
  That is the reason this bill is extremely important. We need to 
expand our exports, open up the markets so that there will be new jobs 
for the 3 million people that have been downsized in the name of 
efficiency.
  What is in this bill that would affect that? No. 1, this cripples the 
embassies if we do not override this veto. It cripples our security. It 
cripples our communications. It makes them difficult to represent the 
United States around the world and to encourage the growth in exports.
  Second, the International Trade Agency is crippled, and it is the 
protector of our industries against unfair dumping, against unfair 
practices that make it difficult for them to compete.
  Third, it cripples the manufacturing extension assistance, which 
helps small and medium businesses to be competitive in the marketplace.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], 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 on the subcommittee, the 
ranking chairman, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, may I again wish my friend, the subcommittee chairman 
with the least meritorious appropriation bills, a warm and happy new 
year. The time that he had off for Christmas has left him confused and 
not as prepared as he normally is, because he said the Congress has an 
opportunity to bring people back to work.
  Dear Mr. Subcommittee Chairman of Appropriations, a Congressman rose 
on the floor in April and said, ``I will shut down the government if 
the President does not agree to my budget, and when that happens, watch 
and see what he will do then.''
  That was the Time Man of the Year that uttered those now famous 
remarks. So why does the gentleman not admit that a continuing 
resolution would not free your appropriation, which was wisely vetoed 
by the President, but that a continuing resolution would open up the 
entire Government? Let us get real around here.
  We could not work during Christmas because there was not anything to 
do. We come back now, there still is not anything to do. So we start 
bringing up these lemons, trying to see if we can override them.
  Please, the President's veto did not shut down the Government. So my 
dear friend, recognize that we are the ones that could operate. Tell me 
what is the problem with your Presidential candidate, the majority 
leader, who is trying to organize the Republicans to make a face-saving 
device after Christmas.
  Now, in Detroit, the eighth largest police force in the country, we 
strongly support the President's Cops on the Beat Program. We have 
already received the first round funding. In Dearborn Heights, Mayor 
Ruth Canfield has said this is excellent. We are on the way. In 
Highland Park, MI, another part of my district, the mayor, Lindsey 
Porter, has praised the half dozen. They only got six cops, but six 
makes a difference in a small town. Ruth Canfield, the mayor of 
Dearborn Heights, the Detroit police chief, Isaiah McKinnon, all say 
the same thing. Do not kill this program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise only to respond to the ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations's remarks about our obligation to 
provide services that have already been paid for. That is the point of 
this debate.
  For 26 years we have been providing services that have not been paid 
for. We have passed the bill on to future generations. That is why we 
are here and having trouble. But we insist on a balanced budget so we 
stop passing the bill on. That is why we are here.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, at the conclusion of this 
debate we will have the opportunity to reopen three executive branch 
departments and all of their agencies and to fund the judicial branch 
of the U.S. Government.
  The President's veto of this appropriations bill has had the effect 
of keeping no less than 43,200 employees of the United States 
furloughed. It did not have to be this way.
  The President vetoed this conference report because of an alternative 
method of funding the 1994 crime bill's COPS Program. The fact is under 
this bill, the one the President vetoed, there is more funding provided 
for more local governments with more flexibility to hire cops or to 
hire technology or get 

[[Page H28]]
equipment, but it lets the decision be made locally, not ``Father Knows 
Best'' in Washington. I guess it is hard to break the habit of assuming 
that all wisdom and judgment is here in Washington, and not out where 
the people are.
  Prison building grants are contained in this bill that the President 
vetoed. This bill provides $500 million to fund our Truth in Sentencing 
Program: This conference report deals directly with what our criminal 
justice system needs most, holding violent criminals accountable for 
the pain they have caused. It contains needed legislation to prevent 
activist Federal judges from taking over and running State prison 
systems. Count these casualties of the President's veto pen.
  It is clear keeping criminals behind bars will reduce crime. This 
bill does it. Prison construction is worthwhile in a proven prevention 
program. There are so many other things. Few problems have contributed 
more to the revolving door of justice than Federal court-imposed prison 
population caps. This bill removes them.
  Cities across the United States are being forced to put up with 
predators on their streets because of this judicial activism. In dozens 
of States and hundreds of communities, Federal judges have imposed 
prison population caps. So vicious criminals are released simply 
because we cannot accommodate the caps.
  In short, the President's veto of the Commerce, State, judiciary and 
Justice conference report does real harm.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear the air, 
because we are talking about the present status of the Government. We 
simply need to pass and consider the Dole legislation, which allows us 
to open this Government and to keep it running.
  While we have some major philosophical differences, those that would 
impact in a dastardly way my 18th congressional district, just recently 
we cited statistics in Houston that showed crime was going down. Partly 
crime was going down because we happened to be the beneficiary of some 
$3 million over the last month to help us ensure that we had 52 or more 
police out in our neighborhoods, the kind of coverage by law 
enforcement that our citizens applauded, participated in, and wanted.
  Yet this bill that is before us that has now been vetoed, of which we 
should sustain the President's veto, denies America's cities the 
opportunity to have the continuation of the Cops on the Beat Program, 
eliminating over 100,000 police. Why our Republican colleagues would 
think that their contract on America can deny the basic rights of 
Americans to have safe streets with police officers patrolling the 
neighborhoods is beyond me. It is a philosophical difference that is 
impacting citizens in the 18th congressional district in the worse way.
  I do not think it is any news to anyone that drugs kill. They simply 
kill. In this legislation, we have our Republican colleagues killing 
the drug courts, courts that have been noted in Harris County to be of 
great consequence and have been able to isolate those in drug 
trafficking, managed to move those people quickly through the system, 
and have them incarcerated, where they belong.
  But what have our Republican colleagues done? The very vital drug 
courts that have helped us stem the tide of drugs, have been eliminated 
under this bill, along with dollars for DEA, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, when we have already stated that it is of great need 
for us to make sure that we have drug violation enforcement and stop 
the tide of drugs coming across our borders.
  Likewise, let me say that rather than provide for jobs, we are 
eliminating jobs by eliminating the Advanced Technology Program, which 
stimulates much needed technical research which creates jobs.
  This bill also devastates our Legal Services Corporation severely 
limiting the access of poor people to the justice system.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend the gentleman from 
Kentucky, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice and State Appropriations, Mr. Rogers, for his leadership in 
seeking to override the President's veto and put the employees of 
several important Federal agencies back to work. Time is of the essence 
for them to return back to work and to get their salaries restored. 
Vital services need to be resumed.
  This motion to override the President's veto is the right thing to 
do. As the chairman of our Committee on International Relations, I am 
concerned about the impact that the continued shutdown of the State 
Department is having on American citizens, both here and abroad.
  One key activity of the State Department affected is the operation of 
our domestic passport offices located in our major cities. Our 
colleagues have heard from constituents who have been unable to obtain 
their passports, causing hardship to U.S. businesses, to students, and 
others who need to travel overseas.
  Our embassies and consulates overseas are not providing any visa 
services to foreigners seeking to come to our country, including au 
pairs, who must obtain a J-1 visa to enter our country. Our passport 
offices and visa services should be resumed as quickly as possible. 
Commerce and tourism are vital to our Nation's economy. These vital 
services should be restored immediately.
  These are just a few of the serious consequences of the President's 
veto of this bill, in addition to the impact on law enforcement and 
international trade. As a world leader, Mr. Speaker, we must resume our 
international services to the fullest. We must pay the bills we have 
incurred overseas and end the fiscal limbo into which this veto has 
plunged our foreign service employees. Credibility and reliability are 
hard to gain, but much too easy to lose.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion to override 
the President's veto to get these agencies running again and putting 
our Federal workers back to work.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate, a lot of attention has been 
paid to the crime-fighting elements contained in this bill, I think the 
biggest crime being committed here is on this floor here today by 
trying to blame the President of the United States for vetoing this 
bill, which somehow shuts down Government.
  If we wanted to put Government back to work and all of our employees, 
we would have voted earlier today on a resolution to put them all back 
to work, the so-called Dole legislation. So let us quit talking about 
crime in this crime bill and how great it is and somehow it shuts down 
Government. We really should be talking about fighting crime.
  Being an ex-police officer, I want to devote my attention to the 
crime portion of this legislation.
  Back in 1994, when we passed a real crime bill, we promised, all of 
us, in a bipartisan manner, to put 100,000 more police officers on the 
street. Unlike my friend from Illinois, who said Father Washington 
knows all, we have put 31,000 more police officers on the street.
  Who applied for those 31,000 police officers? No one in this room. No 
one in this room. It was the local mayors, the local county boards of 
commissioners, the state police. They asked, and they applied on a one 
page application, and it worked extremely well.
  The American public wants more police officers on the street. That is 
what this program is delivering. American people feel safe and secure 
in their homes and communities. Putting more police officers in their 
communities will make them safer and make America more secure.

[[Page H29]]

  But in this bill that you are presenting today, not one single police 
officer is guaranteed. We asked you back on December 6, our motion to 
recommit, to take $1.9 billion to fund the COPS Program out of your 
$14.6 billion.
  My friends on that side of the aisle said no, they could not allow us 
to do that. So the President vetoed the bill, amongst others reasons, 
but mostly the COPS reason. December 19, the COPS More Program was 
announced. Many of you got police officers. But you got more than 
police officers, because the COPS Program is more than just cops. It is 
equipment, it is civilian employees, it is technology. It is what you 
need, it is what the local people are telling us they need to fight 
crime in their communities.
  So if you take a look at it, COPS has the support of virtually every 
major law enforcement agency in the United States, the cops, the 
sheriffs, the chief of police, the beat cops in every town and city 
across this country.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote presents us with an immediate opportunity to 
reopen a large and important part of our Government. If the House and 
the Senate votes to override the President's veto, we can have our 
embassies and our passport offices and our freedom broadcasting 
operations back at full strength tomorrow morning.
  In all of the publicity about the Government shutdown, what gets lost 
is that many of the most essential Government services, the ones that 
Americans miss the most, like national parks, museums, passports, VA 
mortgages, are suspended, even though the Republican Congress has 
passed various appropriation bills to keep them open. President Clinton 
vetoed each and every one of these bills, complaining that the multi-
billion-dollar spending levels were too low.
  In the CJS bill, provisions covering the State Department and related 
agencies, only two major items, international organizations and 
peacekeeping, are substantially lower than the 1995 figures. The House, 
I might add, supported higher numbers both in the authorization bill 
which went through my subcommittee, and we met the President and gave 
him exactly what he asked for on that.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill and I urge 
my colleagues to sustain the President's veto of this legislation.
  With two-thirds of the Cabinet agencies closed, paychecks stopped for 
760,000 Federal workers, and 260,000 Government employees furloughed, 
this body should be taking up legislation to immediately reopen the 
Government and put Federal employees back to work.
  What we are engaged in this afternoon is filler, trying to put 
something on the floor because there is no legislative business to 
conduct, so we have this veto override. We know what the outcome will 
be on this, but let us take up the time because the Speaker of the 
House, and the House Republican majority do not want to do what they 
were sent here to do and that is to reopen this Government and put 
those Federal employees back to work again.
  That is wrong to keep them out of work and not being paid. The House 
should follow the actions of the other body and correct this injustice. 
Failure to reopen the Government represents a dereliction of our 
constitutional duty.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to override 
President Clinton's veto, and I ask my colleagues who did not support 
the original conference report to consider the program being held 
hostage by President Clinton's veto pen.
  In America, during the next 5 minutes, one woman will be raped and 
more than a dozen will be beaten, but the President's veto pen ended 
the Federal Government's commitment to protecting these women. This 
bill included full funding for the Violence Against Women Act, $175 
million to protect women and children from abuse. That, Mr. Speaker, is 
a 573-percent increase from last year.
  No, this is not filler. A continuing resolution will provide funding 
for these very important programs at the 1995 level of $26 million. How 
many of my colleagues would argue it is filler to increase $175 million 
for programs to protect women and children compared to this year's $26 
million, and how many of my colleagues are willing to bridge this gap 
at the expense of abused and battered women and children?
  It was a long fight to authorize the Violence Against Women Act. Now 
let us fund it. I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member on the 
Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
President's veto of H.R. 2076. Although there are many sections of this 
bill which I find troubling, I will limit my remarks to the funding of 
the ATP and MEP programs at the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology.
  Mr. Speaker, before speaking in defense of these, I want to pay 
tribute to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee dealing 
with these subjects, who has done a valiant job throughout the year, 
including today, in trying to educate the Congress to the importance of 
these various programs. Funding levels for the MEP and the ATP were not 
the result of any objective analysis of the merits of these programs, 
but were based solely on political considerations.
  From the beginning days of the 104th Congress, both MEP and ATP 
programs were targeted as corporate welfare by many of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, before I list my specific objections to the bill, I want 
to express my disgust with the process this House is following at the 
beginning of the second session of the 104th Congress. We are in the 
midst of the longest Government shutdown in the history of the United 
States. As a result, vital services are being denied to Americans. In 
addition, the other body has passed legislation which would put the 
Government back to work as the budget negotiations progress.
  However, rather than taking up legislation which would put the 
government back to work, the leadership of this House is simply marking 
time by bringing up this veto override. Congress did not pass H.R. 2076 
with the necessary margin to override a veto, so why do we think we 
will have the necessary margin today--we do not. This is a feeble 
pretense by the leadership that the House is doing something, anything 
rather than proceeding with the substantive business pending before 
Congress.
  H.R. 2076 provides adequate funding for the NIST laboratories and 
provides subsistence funding for the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership [MEP] but it completely eliminates funding for the Advanced 
Technology Program [ATP]. Funding levels for the MEP and the ATP were 
not the result of any objective analysis of the merits of these 
programs, but were based solely on political considerations. From the 
beginning days of the 104th Congress both the MEP and ATP programs were 
targeted as corporate welfare by many of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle.
  The only reason there is any funding for the MEP is due to the 
educational efforts of the small and medium-sized business community 
about the importance of this program. The ATP, which up to now has 
funded only 276 grants, could not muster the widespread support to 
withstand a political vendetta. Indeed, H.R. 2076 not only eliminates 
funding for new projects, it eliminates funding for projects currently 
underway. Current ATP recipients which provide 50 percent of a 
project's cost, will suddenly find themselves short. This bill forces 
the Government to simply walk away from commitments it has made to 
business. Is this the signal that we want to send our business 
community?
  Why do I believe that the termination of these programs was based in 
politics rather than any rational evaluation of the programs? In 
hearings before the Committee on Science this year, the only witnesses 
who spoke 

[[Page H30]]
against ATP and MEP were individuals with no technical or business 
background.
  Every other private sector witness supported these programs and 
programs like them--regardless of whether their company received an ATP 
award. According to a Congressional Budget Office [CBO] report, Federal 
Financial Support of Business, the ATP and MEP represent less than 4 
percent of the $12 billion the Federal Government will spend on 
programs that support industrial technology commercialization.
  If Republicans were interested in rooting out so-called corporate 
welfare, why are they silent regarding the other 96 percent of the 
programs such as the almost $1 billion Small Business Innovation 
Research Program [SBIR] or $3.7 billion at the National Institutes of 
Health [NIH] for applied biomedical research? In fact, the chairman of 
the Science Committee is a cosponsor of legislation, which has passed 
the House, which strengthens government/industry partnerships at 
Federal labs. If opponents of industrial welfare were serious, we would 
be debating the entire range of Government-funded technology 
commercialization programs. The Science Committee has not done this and 
this House has not done this.
  Eliminating the ATP is nothing more than a banner for Members who 
pretend we are eliminating Government corporate welfare. The CBO number 
show that we are not. Let us be frank, ATP was targeted by this 
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 
does not say we are willing to make hard choices--it says we are making 
simple ones. Eliminating ATP is easy because it is a small program with 
a small constituency. Spouting platitudes, opponents of ATP have tried 
to kill it for purely political reasons.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, to quote a Member of the other body: ``Enough is 
enough.''
  It is time for the President to do for the American Government and 
the taxpayer's employees what he did for the government and people of 
Mexico.
  Last year, President Clinton provided $20 billion United States 
taxpayer dollars to Mexico so they could pay their bills and employees.
  But President Clinton vetoed the appropriations bills that would have 
paid the bills for the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments and 
their employees.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is time to override the 
irresponsibility of the President. Vote yes to override President 
Clinton's veto of the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, It is time for Congress to do for America what the 
President did for Mexico.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I come here this afternoon to express my 
outrage. My colleagues talk about opening the Government when they have 
closed it down. Some of them say they are revolutionaries. I think the 
question is whether they are becoming anarchists or nihilists.
  I have heard some say their hearts go out to the those whose services 
are being cut, but their fists are on their neck.
  Look, I like the COPS Program. It is working in the 12th District. It 
is working in nine different police departments and they fashion their 
own. Some of my colleagues may not like it, but they should not shut 
down the Government to carry out their point of view; they should do it 
through normal legislative processes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as one of the individuals who has had the 
privilege of living along the Mexican border, I need to highlight that 
a continuing resolution will not address the outrageous situation along 
our border. Actually, this bill does include $500 million of 
reimbursement to State and local government for the cost of 
incarceration of criminal illegal aliens, Mr. Speaker. Also, there are 
1,000 new Border Patrol agents to be put at the border and also 1,500 
additional INS individuals to be put at the border.
  Mr. Speaker, if Members had seen the rape, the main, the loss of life 
along our frontiers, they would never want to support the status quo. I 
ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do they really want 
to serve the status quo, even at the cost of the type of anarchy we are 
confronting on our border?
  We keep hearing about the need to fight for crime. Let me tell my 
colleagues that the fight against drugs, the fight against crime, and 
the fight against the injustices of illegal immigration starts at our 
borders, and it is time we have the guts to either admit that we do not 
want to control the border, or we start voting for the funding so we do 
our job at the border.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, for those of my colleagues who may have 
missed it, New York City is experiencing the steepest decline in 
violent crime since 1972. No one thought we could do it, but we did. 
With the help of the President's COPS Program, we have added well over 
2,000 new police officers to the New York City Police Department. Those 
police are dedicated to new policing strategies; targeting hot spots, 
walking neighborhood beats, working with the community to prevent 
crime. That is what community policing is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, this trend is not just confined to New York City. Other 
cities, like Houston and San Diego, are experiencing a similar decline. 
It makes no sense to eliminate a successful program such as this, as 
this bill does.
  This is not a debate about balancing the budget, a goal many of us 
support, this is about the priorities of our country. To me and my 
constituents, ridding our streets of crime is a priority worth fighting 
for. Sustain safe communities. Sustain the President's veto.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speakers, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to put many 
Government employees back to work--by overriding the President's ill-
conceived veto of H.R. 2076, the Commerce, State and Justice 
appropriations bill.
  H.R. 2076 is a fiscally responsible bill which reflects the 
priorities of the American people. The bill provides $1.8 billion--a 
20-percent increase over fiscal year 1995--to help I.N.S. stem the tide 
of illegal immigration.
  H.R. 2076 provides $3.4 billion to aid States and localities in their 
fight against crime. That includes money for Byrne grants, Weed and 
seed, and the local law enforcement block grant.
  It also provides $2.9 billion for prison construction so that States 
can keep violent criminals behind bars.
  When the House passed this appropriation earlier, 256 Members--
including 35 Democrats--voted for it. It is not radical. It is not 
extreme. In fact, H.R. 2076 is a responsible approach to balancing 
fiscal constraints with the need to provide real tools to fight crime 
at the local level.
  With just a few more votes, we can override the President's veto. A 
yes vote on H.R. 2076 would mean that the hard working employees at the 
Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 
U.S. Marshal's Service can go to work and get paid. It would also mean 
that our constituents will be able to get passports in a timely manner.
  If we want to get our Nation on the path to a balanced budget, 
preserve our commitment to fighting crime, and get the Government back 
to work again, we must support the motion to override the President's 
veto.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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, as Senator Dole said, as the Member of the 
other body said, enough is enough. The majority leader the other day 
said it. The American people are saying it. All of the House 
Republicans, who are becoming extremists, ``Shut the government down 
unless you do it exactly my way,'' they can blame this on the 

[[Page H31]]
President, but everyone knows that is not the case. He has exercised 
his veto power because he wants to see the COPS Program continue, the 
cops on the beat which are helping our neighborhood.
  Look at the choice we are putting law enforcement in. We are saying 
either knock out the COPS Program, which every major police group in 
America supports, or all our brave Federal law enforcement people get 
half pay. Shame on us. FBI agents, half pay? DEA agents, risking their 
lives, half pay? And now we are telling them that they may not get 
health benefits next week? Young Federal law enforcement people who go 
out and risk their lives?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield on my time. If the 
gentleman has time, I would love to continue the dialog with him. But 
it should be a dialog; not do it my way or no way, as the majority 
party is saying. So I will not yield.
  Shame on those who are saying that young FBI agent, that young DEA 
agent, maybe his wife is pregnant, that they may not get health 
benefits next week because of this horrible political game. Members on 
the other side are bringing this House to a new low, telling law 
enforcement either they will not get the police program or they will 
get half pay; telling law enforcement unless it is done exactly our way 
they will get half pay.
  Republicans are not the party of law and order any more. They are are 
not the party defending law enforcement any more. They have become the 
party of extremism, of political games, and the American people know 
it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just spoke, I am afraid, is 
slightly confused on who is responsible for what. This bill covers part 
of the Federal Government, a part of which is mostly out and not 
working. But if we want to change it, we need to vote to override the 
President's veto because that will put the employees of the departments 
in this bill--Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary--back to work.
  These are valuable departments. In 1994, I happened to have supported 
the 100,000 cops on the street proposal. After looking at the list 
where Justice gave those awards, I strongly support giving the 
community the funds and letting those closest to the problem make the 
decision. I was a coauthor with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] 
of the troops to cops proposal that is part of that program. And I must 
say I am disappointed at some of the judgments made by those in the 
Department of Justice.
  I think the sooner we have the States, the counties, and the cities 
making these decisions, the more confidence we can have in the outcome.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn], for whom I have a great deal of respect. The 
gentleman did support the COPS Program. It took some courage. The 
gentleman had to break from some of his party's leadership last year to 
do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say this: Be a group. Sit down and negotiate. I 
am not talking to the gentleman from California per se, although I 
would be interested to hear what the gentleman had to say. I am talking 
to the Speaker and the leadership on that side.
  The President vetoed the bill because of a fundamental disagreement. 
He thought the COPS Program should continue. He thought that the money 
that the majority party put in there for prisons only went to three or 
four States, instead of my State, which needs more money for prisons, 
so he vetoed the bill. That has been done by every President from 
George Washington on.
  Mr. Speaker, that does not mean the President is causing this. This 
is the first Congress in history, with a Republican Speaker as its 
leader, to say, ``When the President vetoes, we shut down the 
Government until we force him to his knees.'' That is what is happening 
here, and let the American people hear it.
  Again, a veto happens all the time, has happened hundreds of times. 
That is not what is shutting the Government down. I just want to make 
this point again. It happens all the time.
  What is different today, for the first time in history a political 
party has the temerity, has the gall to say to the President, ``Unless 
you do it my way, we are shutting the Government down.'' And who loses? 
Who loses are the brave men and women whom we both support: Law 
enforcement, the FBI. They get half pay. They do not know what their 
health benefits are going to be next week. Shame on you.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the override 
of the Presidential veto.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for an override of 
the Presidential veto of H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State 
Appropriations Act.
  For those in this body interested in putting Federal employees back 
to work, this vote presents an opportunity to immediately restore funds 
for three extremely important agencies. Tens of thousands of Government 
workers will go back to work if we override the President's ill-
conceived veto.
  My colleagues have offered excellent reasons to vote in favor of the 
Justice Department provisions of H.R. 2076. It provides bloc grants to 
get cops on the street while avoiding the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-
all Federal bureaucracy, and funds an additional 1,000 border patrol 
agents to combat illegal immigration. As my colleague, the chairman of 
the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], has noted, it is a good, tough, anti-crime 
bill.
  But this Member, as vice-chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, would alert his colleagues to some of the implications of 
the continued shutdown of the Department of State. We have sent 
representatives to every country on earth, and now we are refusing to 
support them. High-risk posts, such as Lebanon, Pakistan, and the 
Central Asian Republics, can no longer pay for personal security. In 
many of these locations, American diplomats are open targets. Two State 
Department employees were recently assassinated in Karachi. And now we 
cannot pay guards to protect these employees. My colleagues, this is 
just plain wrong.
  Certainly most congressional offices have been contacted by angry 
constituents unable to get a passport. According to today's Washington 
Post, we now have a backlog of 200,000 passport applications waiting to 
be processed. In some cases, people with real family emergencies are 
finding it impossible to reach their destination because the State 
Department passport office is closed.
  Likewise, individuals seeking to come to the United States are 
finding it impossible to get visas from our overseas Embassies. My 
colleagues, the Untied States is losing hundreds of millions of dollars 
daily because foreign tourists are unable to fulfill their vacation 
plans. This Member has been to American consular sections in places 
like Seoul, Korea, where even under normal conditions the line to get 
an American visa can be blocks long--with each visa applicant ready to 
spend thousands of dollars in the United States if given the 
opportunity.
  In addition, our Embassies are beginning to face litigation or loss 
of basic services because of failure to pay our bills. This is not a 
trivial matter. Licenses for the sale of high-technology equipment are 
not being processed, and American commercial service centers have 
closed their doors. The United States compound in Vietnam is having its 
electricity cut off for failure to pay its bill. Drinking water is 
being shut off at the United States special interests section in Cuba. 
The Government of Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations on Earth, has 
offered us a loan to keep operations up and running. The United States 
simply cannot continue to function in this way--we are abnegating our 
basic international responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to support H.R. 2076. Overriding 
the Presidential veto will restore a range of basic services that 
currently are denied to the American people. Overriding the 
Presidential veto will get Federal employees back to work. Overriding 
the Presidential veto is just, plain good Government.
  This Member urges his colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2076.
  
[[Page H32]]

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I represent two Federal prison facilities 
in my district. Last week I was advised that the guards would not be 
paid, but some of the inmates would. This is the perverse consequence 
of a Washington-knows-best mentality. It is precisely this mentality 
that this bill attempts to change.
  Even the Washington Post editorial board on September 21 of last 
year, which is hardly a Republican propaganda organ, says that our 
approach makes more sense: Crime is primarily a State and local issue.
  Mr. Speaker, let us grant locals some flexibility in dealing with it. 
Let us end this absurdity. Let us override this veto.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get it straight. Who is saying that, ``If I do 
not get it my way, I am going to shut the Government down''? It is the 
President. In his veto message he says, as I have said, ``I will not 
sign any version of this bill that does not fund the COPS initiative as 
a freestanding, discretionary, grant program as authorized.''
  ``If I do not get my way I will shut the Government down, and I 
vetoed the bill,'' and so there it is. The President vetoed the bill 
that funds the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Justice 
Department, the Judiciary, 20 independent agencies, and said, ``So 
there.''
  We are saying to our colleagues on the other side, This is your time, 
Members of Congress. If you want to put 206,000 American workers in the 
Government back to work, vote yes on this bill. If you want to keep 
them out and deny them paychecks, vote no. But now is your chance.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side have all made speeches 
right here: ``If I had the vote, I would put them all back to work.'' 
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have got it right now. Vote ``yes.'' Put 
them back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the 1994 crime bill, we 
made a landmark commitment to provide an additional 100,000 police 
officers on the streets and sidewalks of our communities across 
America. When I talk to law enforcement officers and members of orange 
hat patrols, PTA presidents and parents in my district, they tell me 
that putting cops on the beat is the best way to fight crime. These 
officers walk the streets of our communities, get to know the people 
they serve, and the community members to get to know them. Their 
presence deters crime and instills a sense of safety in our 
neighborhoods.
  But the Commerce, Justice, State apprpopriations bill which has been 
adopted by the Republican majority of this House eviscerates the COPS 
Program and its goal. This was the primary reasons President Clinton 
vetoed this bill. I applaud his actions, and urge my colleagues to 
sustain his veto.
  No one can argue that the COPS Program isn't working. In the Fifth 
District of Maryland, the towns of Crofton, La Plata, Greenbelt, 
Laurel, Hyattsville, and the counties of Anne Arundel, Calvert, 
Charles, and Prince George's have all received funds to hire additional 
police officers. More than half the police departments in the country 
have been scheduled to receive additional officers.
  Why are the Republicans dismantling this effective program? Why are 
they eliminating the funding for community officers? Why are they 
lumping money for COPS into a block grant that adds bureaurcracy? 
Sheriffs across the country, including those in my district, Republican 
and Democrat alike, are opposed to this change. Fred Davis, the sheriff 
of Charles County and a Republican, told me that he wanted this funding 
to remain intact. Block granting it, he argues, will jeopardize the 
goal of adding 100,000 cops. ``My concern is that would be lost,'' he 
says. If the money is given to States, it ``could be used for other 
programs. I think to change the way it is now done adds another layer 
of bureaucracy. It's going to slow things down.'' Our superintendent of 
the Maryland State Police, David Mitchell, has also voiced his support 
for the COPS Program and I would like to submit it for the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in the House should listen to the voices 
of those like Sheriff Davis, Chief Mitchell and law enforcement 
organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, and the National Sheriffs' 
Association, and keep street smart law enforcement officers on the 
streets of America.
  Crime is a national emergency. We know that putting more police on 
the streets is an effective response to this crisis. We know that the 
COPS Program puts police officers in the place where they make the most 
difference--on the streets. I urge my colleagues to uphold the 
President's veto and support the Cops on the Beat Program.

                                            State of Maryland,    
                                            Department of Maryland


                                                 State Police,

                                  Pikesville, MD, January 3, 1996.
     Hon. Steny Hamilton Hoyer,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hoyer: The Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provides needed assistance to 
     many governmental agencies. In particular, the Community 
     Oriented Policy Services (COPS) program provides much needed 
     funding for manpower and equipment for the law enforcement 
     community. Moreover, the COPS program provides an excellent 
     framework from which to build a consistent community policing 
     approach throughout the country. Additionally, many police 
     departments would not otherwise be able to afford 
     implementation of this innovative approach to policing 
     without federal assistance.
       Another extremely important component of the violent Crime 
     Control Act is funding for addressing the problem of violence 
     against women. The law enforcement community benefits greatly 
     from funding for education, training and the formation of 
     special investigative units to fight this terrible plague on 
     society. Without continued funding many gains will be 
     negated.
       Should funding for this important act diminish or be 
     abolished, the adverse impact will be felt at state and local 
     levels throughout our country. Without the centralized 
     administration and direction from the COPS office, much 
     progress in these important endeavors will be lost. Ceasing 
     these programs in their infancy will cause disruption in 
     service to our communities, as most state and local 
     governments cannot afford to pick up lost funding with local 
     funds at this time.
       As this act is of vital importance to the communities in 
     Maryland, I strongly urge your support for continued funding 
     by the federal government. The partnership currently in place 
     among the federal, state and local governments, the police 
     and our communities is far too important to allow to 
     dissolve.
           Sincerely,
                                                David B. Mitchell,
                                                   Superintendent.

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support overriding the 
President's veto of the Commerce-Justice-State fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bill.
  For more than 2 weeks, Federal workers within the affected agencies 
of this bill, have not been paid to perform the crucial services which 
this bill funds. This bill funds 3 Cabinet departments, the Supreme 
Court, the Federal judiciary, the U.S. Trade Representative, and 22 
independent agencies.
  The bill is diverse. It funds such disparate agencies as the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation [FBI], the Small Business Administration [SBA], 
the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC], the United States 
Information Agency [USIA], the Legal Services Corporation, and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service. By overriding the President's veto 
today, we can return these Federal workers to work tomorrow.
  Federal employees want to work. They want to go back and perform 
their vital and necessary functions--processing passports and visas, 
implementing strong crimefighting measures, collecting important 
commerce data, and allowing our Nation to be more globally competitive, 
among other critical duties.
  Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that this bill also funds 
programs which are important to law enforcement and our economic 
competitiveness. During consideration of the conference report last 
month, I pointed out that funding for the Violence Against Women Act 
[VAWA] and other legal and law enforcement programs critical to the 
well-being of American families needed to be funded.

  The bill also funds the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology [NIST], the only Federal laboratory specifically charged 
with the mission of assisting U.S. industry. The bill funds the vital 
measurement and standards activities and other basic science research 
of the NIST laboratories upon which industry significantly relies.
  The bill also provides NIST funding for its Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership [MEP] Program, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards 
Program, and NIST Construction of Facilities Program, which is vital 
for NIST to be able to continue meeting its mission in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to return our Federal workers to work. I urge 
my colleagues to override the President's veto of this bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act, and in 
support of overriding the President's veto. This bill does exactly what 
needs to be done in this time of fiscal restraint: It sets priorities 
and it trims the fat.

[[Page H33]]

  This bill recognizes the fact that President Clinton's COPS Program 
is a myth; the communities will never see the 100,000 cops that the 
President has promised--the numbers just don't add up.
  Instead, the bill empowers communities by providing for the block 
grants that passed as part of the Contract With America. We offer more 
funding and more flexibility; most of all, we have an approach that is 
realistic and very workable. It places power in the hands of our local 
governments, who can use the money to address the problems unique to 
their area.
  This legislation also reduces funding for the Legal Services 
Corporation [LSC], an entity that has systematically abused taxpayer 
money by, for example, representing drug dealers in public housing. I 
would have preferred to eliminate the LSC altogether, but the bill 
makes a step in the right direction by placing restrictions on the 
types of cases it can engage in.
  We also devote additional resources to combat illegal immigration by 
providing increased resources for the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service [INS]. New border patrol agents will enable us to police our 
borders more effectively, thus preventing the problems that arise once 
the illegals sneak in.
  Mr. Chairman, I therefore urge my fellow Members to vote in support 
of overriding the President's veto of this Commerce, Justice, State and 
Judiciary Appropriations Act. Let's get the Federal workers in these 
Departments back to work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the yeas and 
nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 159, not voting 34, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 4]

                               YEAS--240

     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     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
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--159

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     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
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Abercrombie
     Armey
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Callahan
     Chapman
     Clay
     DeFazio
     Dixon
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hoke
     Hutchinson
     LaTourette
     Lightfoot
     Meek
     Mfume
     Norwood
     Pelosi
     Quillen
     Rush
     Sawyer
     Shuster
     Souder
     Stark
     Stockman
     Studds
     Visclosky
     Wilson
     Wyden

                              {time}  1724

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Armey and Mr. Hoke for, with Mr. Abercrombie against.
       Mr. Lightfoot and Mr. Quillen for, with Mr. DeFazio 
     against.

  Mr. BARCIA and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of the 
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The message and the bill are 
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
  The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

                          ____________________