[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8149-H8215]
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, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 479 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3814.
{time} 1333
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3814) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gunderson
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this $29.5 billion appropriations bill for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and related
agencies for fiscal 1997, opens a new chapter in our effort to bring
crime and drugs and our borders under control. It is a bill that puts
the Congress on record as being willing to put the resources that are
required to restore safety to our neighborhoods and make our citizens
safe in their homes and on their streets. It is a bill that proposes
funding to attack real life problems that exist today.
Let me spell out what the problems that are confronting our Nation
are in this arena, Mr. Chairman. One is drugs.
The administration is sending a giant smokescreen to cover up its
abject failure in the fight against drug use. All we hear is that
cigarette smoking is so terrible and we have to wipe out this scourge
on America's teenagers. They do not talk about the real problem with
teenagers, and that is drugs, hard drugs. They are not just bad; they
kill, and they cause people to kill others.
Drugs: After a decade of decline since 1992, overall drug use is on
the rise again, and if my colleagues would notice on the chart the
farthest away, prior to 1992 the number of Americans using illicit
drugs plunged from 24.7 million in 1979 to 11.5 million in 1992, and
the casual use of cocaine fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 1992.
Overwhelming evidence shows a sharp and growing increase in drug use
among young people since 1992, as that chart dramatically shows.
Teenage drug use has increased by 50 percent from 1992 to 1994, from
2.4 million teen drug users to 3.8 million.
Do my colleagues know what happened when that valley occurred in
those charts over there? That is when the Clinton administration came
in and cleaned out the drug policy office of the White House, and all
of a sudden teenage drug use skyrocketed and is still doing so.
Now I turn my colleagues' attention to this chart nearest to me.
Since 1992, marijuana use by eighth graders has increased by 146
percent; among tenth graders, by 123 percent; and today one out of
three high school seniors smoke marijuana.
The new approach to drug policy announced in September 1993, which
promised to, ``reinvent drug control programs'' had the following
effects: purity of drugs is up; supply of drugs is up; the cost of
drugs is down. And we can see by the chart the results in high school
marijuana use in our country.
This bill provides over $1 billion to the Drug Enforcement
Administration, $173 million more than the current year, a 20-percent
increase, including a major $75 million initiative on source country
interdiction, restoring the policy that existed before this
administration abandoned efforts to block drugs at the source, and $56
million to stop drug trafficking on the Southwest border where 70
percent of the drugs in the United States come into this country. We
are reigniting the war on drugs to reverse the increase in drug use
since 1992. That is problem 1: Drugs.
Problem 2: Our borders are still out of control. The administration's
illegal alien strategy is leaking like a sieve. Illegal aliens are
being caught and then, because we do not have the space to detain them,
they are being released. INS first said they would deport 110,000 with
the extra money we gave them the last 2 years. Now they are saying only
62,000 will be deported. That is half of what they first said and that
is not acceptable. Seventy percent of our drugs come in across the
Southwest border, yet alien drug dealers are being caught and released
back across the Southwest border because they do not have the jail
space to hold them for trial.
Here is what we are going to do in this bill. INS is funded at $2.2
billion, $443 million more than the current year, $30 million more than
the President wants, a 26-percent increase over the current year. We
provide for 1,100 new border patrol agents compared with 700 that the
President has requested of us. A $114 million increase for removal of
illegal aliens, $78 million more than the President wanted, including
2,700 more detention beds so that illegal aliens can be held until they
are deported. We provide $405 million for Federal prisoner detention,
$152 million more than the current year. That is for jail space to jail
illegal alien drug smugglers until we can try them and then deport
them.
With this 26-percent increase we are plugging the holes in the
administration's sieve that they call a border policy. That is problem
2.
Problem 3: Violence against women and children. The administration is
all talk and no action. We gave them $175 million this year. Do my
colleagues know how much they have spent for violence against women?
Guess. My colleagues you say 50 percent? No. Would my colleagues say a
tenth? No. They have spent less than a half a million dollars out of
$175 million, and they
[[Page H8150]]
have had the program for 2 years. It is all talk, my colleagues, no
action.
We provide $197.5 million for violence against women, half a million
dollars more than they want, $22.5 million more than the current year,
and hope that they will spend it because we cannot spent it for them.
They will have to spend it in grants.
They talk about stopping violence against women. We gave them the
money 2 years ago, and they sit on it.
Enough is enough. We do not want talk, we want action. That is
problem 3.
Problem 4: Juvenile crime. While railing against teenagers smoking
cigarettes, this administration is letting teens get by with murder and
hard drugs. Talk about a real smokescreen, they really got one going
here.
Let me show my colleagues by this chart to my left.
{time} 1345
One of every five violent crimes is now committed in this country by
a juvenile. The FBI's report on crime showed in 1994, 17 percent of all
murders were committed by juveniles. Fifth-five percent of all arsons,
36 percent of all burglaries, 16 percent of aggravated assaults in 1995
were committed by juveniles.
In addition to the $150 million in juvenile justice, we provide a
$30.5 million incentive under the COPS Program to States that treat 14-
year-olds as adults if they commit serious violent crimes. It is time
to fight fire with fire on kids who choose violence. We provide $1.4
billion for the administration's COPS Programs and $571 million for the
local law enforcement block grant, $68 million over the current year.
We provide $560 million for the Byrne grants for locals to use. That is
a $25 million increase.
All Federal law enforcement agencies--the FBI and the DEA--all the
Federal law enforcement agencies are above what the President requested
of us.
Overall for the Justice Department, we provide $16.3 billion for
Department of Justice law enforcement programs, a $1.6 billion increase
over the current year, an 11-percent increase. For the Judiciary, we
provide an increase of $177 million up 5.8 percent, and we have
provided for all of these increases by scraping the bottom of the
barrel in other agencies. We had no choice.
In Commerce, we provide $3.5 billion for Commerce, down $120 million.
We provide $110.5 million for the advanced technology program, half the
1996 level, to provide continuation grants for small businesses, not to
subsidize Fortune 500 companies, which they are doing now. We increase
the Census for the year 2000 census by $55 million, and we preserve
trade promotion and basic science R&D in the Commerce Department.
In the State, USIA, and Arms Control Disarmament Agency Chapter, we
are under $5 billion, down $128 million from 1996. We include $50
million for payment of U.N. peacekeeping arrearages conditioned on U.N.
reform.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the ongoing U.N.-sponsored negotiations
on global climate change, I understand that the United States has
agreed to negotiate a protocol or other legal instrument in 1997 which
may set quantified limitation and reduction objectives for greenhouse
gas emissions effective after the year 2000. These negotiations take
place under the auspices of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate
Change, which requires that any proposed protocol or amendment to the
convention be communicated to parties to the convention at least 6
months prior to proposed adoption. Because of the impact such proposals
could have on U.S. companies and workers, the State Department and
other U.S. Government agencies should fully analyze the economic impact
of any proposal to set binding limits and timetables before adopting a
U.S. negotiating position.
We fund the Legal Services Corporation at $141 million. The Committee
on Appropriations has been required to act without the benefit of
needed authorization legislation that should be passed that we set the
policy of how this House and this Congress want to assure access to
legal services by poor people. We are providing a level of funding in
this bill that will permit the current system to remain in place at
reduced levels, to spur policy decisions on that issue that are not
within the jurisdiction of our committee.
Funding is terminated for several smaller organizations, as we try to
tighten our belt wherever we can.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my ranking member, the
gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, who has been very, very
helpful in this process, a true partner in drawing this bill, making
the tough decisions; the gentleman from Louisiana, Bob Livingston, the
chairman of the full committee and a stalwart when it came to providing
funding necessary in this bill; the ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, who has been helpful; and, of course, all of the
hard-working members of this subcommittee. We have some of the best in
this body. I thank them for all of their work.
Overall, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill opens a new
chapter in our effort to bring crime, drugs, and borders under control.
We set priorities, we make tough decisions, and we reduce spending on
low-priority programs. We assert leadership to reignite the war on
drugs, to make up for the Administration that has been woefully lacking
on this issue. It plugs the holes in our borders by assuring we not
only apprehend illegal immigrants and drug traffickers, we incarcerate
and deport them. We put our priorities where they belong: in fighting
the war on crime and protecting our citizens in their homes across this
great country.
I urge our colleagues to support this bill. It is one that I think
they can proudly support. I certainly urge them to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following information:
[[Page H8151]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY96.000
[[Page H8152]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY96.001
[[Page H8153]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY96.002
[[Page H8154]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY96.003
[[Page H8155]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY96.004
[[Page H8156]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY96.005
[[Page H8157]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY96.006
[[Page H8158]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY96.007
[[Page H8159]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3814. Although imperfect,
this bill is a vast improvement over that which we considered last
year. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers],
as well as his able staff, Jim Kulikowski, Therese McAuliffe, Jennifer
Miller, Mac Coffield, in addition to Pat Schlueter, the minority
staffer.
Chairman Rogers has conducted the affairs of this subcommittee in an
exemplary manner. He has acted in an open and fair fashion toward all
members. I want to express to the chairman, Mr. Rogers, my gratitude
for his openness and our ability to work together on this bill.
There are parts of this bill where we are in agreement, particularly
in the crime-fighting and law enforcement area. I would like to take
this opportunity to remind my colleagues that this is the real crime-
fighting bill. This bill provides extremely robust funding levels, $1.6
billion more than the appropriations for the current fiscal year, for
the Department of Justice and its law enforcement functions.
If Members like law enforcement, they are going to love this bill.
Let me give Members some appreciation for just what I am talking about.
First, let me say that President Clinton's requests in the justice
area, the law enforcement and crime-fighting area, the law enforcement
and crime-fighting area, were very strong, very generous. This bill
provides a bit more funding.
We can anticipate, that the Senate side, if pattern holds, will
provide more funding than is in our House bill. In other words, this is
a game of up-the-ante. But that is fine, because in the end we really
do end up with strong funding for law enforcement efforts.
This bill provides $7.1 billion for drug enforcement initiatives,
including a 21-percent increase over fiscal year 1996 funding for the
Drug Enforcement Administration.
The bill also provides funds for 1,100 more border patrol agents;
2,700 additional detention beds for safe holding of illegal aliens
until deportation, a $51 million increase is provided for U.S.
attorneys, a $37.5 million increase is provided for the Marshal
Service, and $255 million in increased funding is provided for the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Of special note, I want my colleagues to know that $1.4 billion is
provided for the COPS program, the cornerstone of the President's
crime-fighting strategy. Let me take a moment to address specifically
the COPS program.
As many of the Members know, during his 1994 State of the Union
address, President Clinton pledged to put an additional 100,000 police
officers on our Nation's streets. Authorization was provided, $8.8
billion over 6 years, in the 1994 crime bill. The COPS program is now a
reality, with funding now approved for over 44,000 cops on the beat.
Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this body and everybody across
this Nation understands what a significant accomplishment it has been
to get the President's COPS program up, and operating. I commend the
President for his leadership in this regard.
The impact of community policing has been strong and swift. Crime is
down, Mr. Chairman. That is the good news. There is not doom and gloom
about crime statistics. Crime is down. Members can spin these
statistics any way they want, but the bottom line is, crime is down. We
can take a category, we can look at a spike.
It is absolutely true that in the last year or so drug use in
juveniles is up. That is a matter that everybody is concerned with, and
all of a sudden, everybody is turning to focus specific attention on
that issue. We have to fight it. This bill does it, and this
administration supports that effort.
Preliminary crime figures released by the FBI in December 1995 show a
dramatic decline in serious crime in the first half of 1995, compared
with the same period in 1994.
In New York City, for instance, overall crime has dropped by 14.5
percent, according to FBI figures. Just last month it was reported that
the COPS program is providing dollars for an additional 500-plus new
cops on the beat. That is significant. It is difficult to argue with
results like this. Simply put, community policing works, it works well,
and I am pleased that the bill before us provides funding to continue
our march down the road to 100,000 more cops on the beat, in accordance
with the President's program and his commitment. We are ahead of
schedule.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment our law enforcement agencies for
the good job they have done in managing and applying the new resources
we have given them, and also I want to compliment the unprecedented
level of cooperation going on between our law enforcement agencies.
I know of no time, certainly during my service, when, for example,
the FBI and the DEA and the other Federal law enforcement agencies are
working more closely together. They are cooperating, they are focusing,
they are sharing information, and it is having a wonderful effect in
crime-fighting.
Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to my colleagues that
substantial funds are provided in this bill for State and local law
enforcement assistance and juvenile justice programs. The Violence
Against Women Act programs are fully funded at $197.5 million. I want
to compliment my chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for
that funding.
He does express concerns about the fact that the Violence Against
Women grants are not already out there. Perhaps, in a way, that is a
fair consideration. We are all impatient as appropriators that this
money get out and get expended. I would add, however, that we could
have helped those who were managing those grant programs last year if
we did not have some 10, 12, 15, or however many continuous
resolutions. No administrator can develop a grant program for a 2-week
continuing resolution, and I do not think the Congress would want them
to try.
In addition, the States could not respond to grant applications for a
2-week continuing resolution. After 2 weeks that money expired, and we
went into another continuing resolution. In other words, there was
considerable legislative instability that the administration and the
States were trying to work successfully within last year. This
perfectly well explains why the Violence Against Women grants were not
let out. Mr. Chairman, the good news is that since obtaining their
fiscal year 1996 appropriations, the Office of Justice programs has
mailed out application kits to all the States in this Violence Against
Women Program. They were due back July 1 of this year, and awards will
be made on a rolling basis within 30 days of receipt of the
applications. Most of the Violence Against Women grants will be awarded
by August 15, within 4 months of the signing of the omnibus
appropriations bill, making those funds available. That is timely, and
I know they have been working hard to make sure those grants do get out
to fight violence against women.
I am very pleased with the very generous funding levels with the
Department of Justice.
However, Mr. Chairman, I must note the areas in this bill with which
I have serious concerns. First, I am extremely concerned with the level
of funding provided for the programs under the Department of Commerce.
This bill would cut the Department by $756 million below the
administration's request and $119 million below the level provided in
fiscal year 1996.
The bill does not provide adequate funding for the Department of
Commerce' technology initiatives. The most egregious example is the
advanced technology program. There is only $110.5 million for the ATP
in this bill, not nearly enough for the Federal Government to fulfill
its obligations in prior-year grant awards. In other words, there is
not enough money in this bill to meet obligations already incurred by
the Government. While I realize there is a philosophical difference of
opinion regarding the advanced technology program, this program is a
critical part of the President's competitiveness agenda, and deserves
to be funded robustly. While I am pleased with the increases this bill
provides for the NIST internal programs, it is simply not a substitute
for ATP.
I also regret the majority's decision to zero out NIST's construction
account. The current laboratory facilities
[[Page H8160]]
are woefully inadequate to today's mission, and such an action only
serves to perpetuate the problem.
Also in Commerce, I want to make note of the funding level available
for the Census Bureau. This bill provides a funding level which is $60
million below the President's request. It does not provide much-needed
funding increases for the current economic statistics, and cuts in half
the requested increase for the ramp-up for the 2000 census. I know
every American is concerned that the census is done accurately, done
properly, done on time, and we are cutting money in that vital area.
There are several other areas for Commerce's budget which this bill
does not fund adequately, Mr. Chairman.
{time} 1400
With regard to the Small Business Administration, this bill does not
provide the requested and needed increase for the 7(a) loan program. I
am concerned that without necessary changes to the program's subsidy
rate, this bill may limit capital available to small businesses. I plan
to work with the chairman during the conference to increase funding for
this vital agency.
In addition, while I am pleased that the bill offers a first step at
reducing our peacekeeping debt, I am concerned that it does not go far
enough and will put us further behind in the long run in meeting this
international obligation. My colleagues will be pleased to know that
the committee has remained firm in its resolve to seek continued reform
at the United Nations. This is an issue that Chairman Rogers has worked
on for many years and he has been successful in bringing the United
Nations to a reform posture, or at least in providing incentives to
bring them to a reform posture.
My only concern is not with the incentives, but the fact that we are
not funding peacekeeping arrearages enough. I think we could do much
more and still maintain the momentum with regard to reform at the
United Nations.
Further, I must take a moment to express a reservation about
reductions in USIA's accounts, especially in salaries and expenses and
educational and cultural exchanges. At the same time, I have serious
concerns about providing additional funds for Radio Free Asia. The
Broadcasting Board of Governors has not produced an operating plan or
provided any meaningful operation about transmission or other operating
costs and, in addition, the newly assembled Radio Free Asia staff
either is unable or unwilling to provide the committee with estimates
of just how much Radio Free Asia Pacific broadcasting will grow to cost
in the out years. In addition, I express concerns about the funding for
Radio and TV Marti, some of which we have addressed in the full
committee.
I have saved my biggest concern, Mr. Chairman, about this bill for
last, the shameful cut made to funding for the Legal Services
Corporation. I will at the appropriate time be offering an amendment to
increase funding for this account, so I shall not spend time now
detailing my concerns. I will do so during consideration of the
amendment to increase funding for legal services.
Mr. Chairman, this list by no means represents every deficiency in
the bill, but with limited time here I wanted to highlight my biggest
concerns. I intend to work hard with the majority to make improvements.
Let me emphasize again that the chairman has labored hard, with scarce
resources, to come up with a fair bill. I am most appreciative for his
hard work and for his attitude of cooperation as this bill has been
drafted and moved to the floor. I look forward to that kind of
relationship as we finalize this legislation through the process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Regula], a very hardworking member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I would commend the chairman and the ranking member. They have
done an excellent job of working with some very important aspects of
our Government responsibility.
The matter of crime and rising use of drugs among young people has
been recognized in the committee bill and in the increase of $1.6
billion for the Justice Department activities. Likewise antidrug
programs, a serious problem, and we have tried to recognize that need
by some additional initiatives on antidrug programs, including a $75
million increase for that type of program.
Illegal aliens: We have increased the funding to speed up the
deportation of illegal aliens that have been apprehended. It provides
significant funding for grants to State and local governments. I think
we should recognize that the States and local governments are often the
incubators of good ideas. And so we try to give them a little more
opportunity to be innovative in their programs so that we can develop
ideas that work well for others.
For example, in Ohio the attorney general has recently developed a
new program that would identify and provide accelerated delinquency
intervention services to high-risk youth who attend a middle school or
junior high school. It is called Ohio's accelerated school based
intervention solution. The subcommittee urges the Justice Department to
carefully review this innovative early intervention approach when it
disburses juvenile justice grants. That is just one example of trying
to get to the problems with young people before they develop into much
larger difficulties.
As chairman of the Steel Caucus, I am pleased to note that we
recognize the importance of promoting U.S. exports abroad and enforcing
our U.S. trade laws. Therefore, we provided a modest $7 million
increase for the International Trade Administration. That may provide
the assistance that is needed in ensuring that we do not have dumping
or countervailing and the enforcement of our antidumping and
countervailing duties laws.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge the support of the bill. I think it
recognizes a lot of important policies and funds them adequately.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I, too, want to commend our chairman, the ranking member, and their
staffs, for a commendable job under very, very difficult circumstances
in fashioning this bill.
It is a real improvement over the fiscal 1996 bill in several areas.
We do have funding for ATP. It is too low, but it is better than the
zero we started our with last year. There is substantial funding for
the COPS Program, rather than no funding, where we started out last
year. There is good funding for the core programs at the National
Institute for Standards and Techonolgy, very, very robust funding for
law enforcement and immigration and many, many other important areas.
But there are some real deficiencies here. And without wanting to
exaggerate those relative to the pluses in the bill, I do want to touch
on several of them.
The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has already mentioned
a serious shortcoming with regard to funding for Legal Services. We
will all be addressing that later on at the time of his amendment, but
it is an egregious problem for us to remedy later on in this debate.
The Advanced Technology Program is at 32 percent of the
administration's request, half of last year's funding level. That is a
very important investment in the economic and technological future of
the country. We need to be doing better there.
Also in the Commerce Department, several accounts within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that are critical for this
Nation's leadership internationally, as well as providing for the
safety and well-being and economic health of our own people, whether
the Climate and Global Change Program, the Space Environmental
Laboratory or several other areas, need to be beefed up.
I would like to take just a moment to talk about the international
accounts in this bill and particularly the overall funding to the
Department of State. I think that we have lost sight of the fact that
diplomacy in behalf of the United States is preventive medicine. It is
designed to avoid the kind of cataclysmic international problems that
[[Page H8161]]
require us to then call on the Defense Department. It is very much like
preventative care rather than surgery. Yet we have seen over the last
several budget cycles a continuing contraction of our resources going
into that very, very important area of looking out for our national
interests abroad. We cannot afford a further erosion of our diplomatic
preparedness, whether it is in the State Department directly, the Arms
Control Agency, which is doing very, very important work for this
country in so many important fields, with proliferation and other
areas, or the USIA, representing the ideas and the culture of this
country abroad.
One of the areas that is a plus as this bill comes to the floor is
that it contains no funding for that failed activity known as TV Marti,
where all objective accounts have confirmed what is the unfortunate
reality; that is, there is no audience for the broadcasts of TV Marti
into the island of Cuba. As pathetic as is the record of TV Marti, as
insulting as its waste of over $100 million is to the American
taxpayer, who is hard pressed enough, still the apologists for this
abject failure say that they have gotten the commitment to restore
funding later on in the process. That would be a huge mistake, Mr.
Chairman, and a classic example of a victory of special interests and
special influence over common sense. I hope we will be on alert to
avoid making that mistake as this bill moves through the process.
Again, let me just close by offering my congratulations to our
chairman and our ranking member for the job they and their staffs have
done.
I thank the chairman. I commend Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member
Mollohan and their staff members for their efforts in trying to balance
the disparate competing interests represented in this bill. Their
impossible task was to somehow provide adequate funding under the
restrictions of the new budget resolution for our Nation's important
research, technology, crime fighting, judiciary, and international
activities.
In some ways, the bill we are considering today is better than last
year's House version of the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments
appropriations bill.
For one thing, it omits further wasteful spending on the TV Marti
boondoggle. And, in other areas, it provides some funding for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's [NIST] Advanced
Technology Program [ATP], instead of no funding. It provides most of
the requested funding for the COPS community policing program, instead
of no funding. It provides full funding for the core research
activities at NIST. And this bill generously funds law enforcement
accounts, most above last year's level and many above the
administration's request.
There are, however, serious problems with this bill that I hope can
be addressed through the amendment and conference process.
First, this bill cuts funding for the Legal Services Corporation by
almost 50 percent. This cut comes on top of a funding reduction of 30
percent for fiscal year 1996. These funding cuts represent an
unconscionable abandonment by this Congress of the Nation's commitment
to equal justice for all citizens regardless of economic status. LSC
provides low-income Americans access to the legal system on basic
matters of family law, consumer issues, housing disputes, and other
issues affecting veterans and the elderly. The funding cut included in
this bill will cripple LSC's ability to carry out its important
mission.
This bill funds the ATP Program at 32 percent of the administration's
request and only one-half of the final conference funding level of last
year. The ATP Program provides a private industry/government
partnership to nurture cutting edge industrial technology that is
either too high risk or too broad based for a single private company
alone to afford to develop. It provides small, competitive grants to
consortia of large and small companies for development of preproduct
technology. These grants are matched by private funds and motivate
private industry to take risks in product and technology development
that otherwise would not occur, not because they lack merit or profit-
making potential, but because the pay-back in the short term is too
problematic for purely private capital. This program promotes America's
long-term economic interests and deserves full support.
I'm also concerned about the committee's effort to restrict ATP
funding to only small businesses. ATP grants often go to a consortium
made up of small and large businesses working together on a single
project. Separating funding and, therefore, grantees according to size
could end up disrupting the valuable partnerships forged between small
and large businesses through previous ATP projects.
I'm also disappointed that the committee was unable to meet the
administration's funding requests for many of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's [NOAA] programs. NOAA's work contributes
to a more productive and competitive nation. NOAA's mission is to
protect life, property, marine and fisheries resources, and our
Nation's coasts and oceans. It accomplishes its mission through
research and monitoring of the condition of the atmosphere, oceans, and
Great Lakes. NOAA predicts the weather, climate, and fisheries'
productivity. In addition to the obvious importance of NOAA to the
health of industries tied to coastal and marine life conditions, the
work at NOAA is important to agribusiness, industries that have an
impact on air quality, and the transportation and communications
industries.
While I understand that these are difficult budgetary times and that
for most accounts the committee bound itself to the authorization bill
produced by the Science Committee earlier this year, NOAA's atmosphere
and ocean programs are important to the economic and environmental
future of the Nation and should be fully supported.
In particular I'm disappointed that the committee didn't move closer
to the administration's funding request for the Climate and Global
Change Program which conducts research to develop long-term climate
observation and prediction techniques, particularly for North America.
This program also examines the role of ocean conditions on long-term
climate changes and provides information on which to base important
policy choices about the necessity or results of environmental and
industry regulation.
Another particular concern is the small, but significant cut in the
Solar/Geomagnetic Research Program. The Space Environmental Laboratory
funded under this account forecasts solar and geomagnetic activity
which can damage satellites and electrical power systems. The warnings
provided by SEL provide the valuable time needed to take steps to limit
the damage caused by unusual solar and geomagnetic activity.
I am also very concerned about the effects of this bill's cuts in the
budgets of the State Department, the U.S. Information Agency and the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. This year's reductions come after
many years of downsizing and restructuring in these agencies. Since
1984, our international affairs budget has fallen 51 percent in real
terms. By the end of the current fiscal year, the State Department
alone will have reduced the size of its work force by 1,900 full-time
employees and will have closed 30 posts worldwide.
These funding reductions have already eroded our diplomatic
preparedness. Further cuts to foreign affairs agencies will threaten
our ability to protect and promote our national interests. The cuts
come at a time when our foreign policy agenda is increasingly dominated
by such issues as access to overseas markets, control of weapons of
mass destruction, protection of the environment, and the promotion of
democracy. In these areas, our country needs effective diplomatic
efforts to negotiate agreements and build coalitions among governments.
I am worried that the cuts contained in this bill may force the State
Department to close additional foreign posts. Before we continue to
diminish our overseas presence, we should make certain that we won't be
severely undermining our ability to gather critical information and
intelligence and to support American commercial interests abroad. We
also need to be certain that the needs of the Defense Department, the
CIA, and other State Department tenants have been fully considered in
decisions to close posts.
The bill provides an inadequate downpayment on the enormous debt we
have run up by failing to pay our dues to the United Nations and other
international organizations. This is not just a matter of being an
international deadbeat. It will harm our ability to promote our
interests in international organizations and will undermine our
credibility in pressing for further U.N. reforms. It also would scuttle
a bold initiative of our Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, to
convince U.N. members to reduce from 25 percent to 20 percent the U.S.
share of the U.N.'s regular budget in return for a multiyear American
commitment to make good on our debt.
Another area of concern is the low level of funding the bill provides
for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The budget for this small
but crucial agency has been slashed almost 30 percent in the last 3
years. At the same time, we in Congress, along with the President, have
continued to give the agency more tasks. While the level of funding
provided this year is close to the bare bones budget provided last
year, the agency then had significant carryover funds that are no
longer available. I fear that the funding in the bill will not enable
the agency to fulfill crucial responsibilities like completing
negotiations on banning nuclear testing, ensuring that all nuclear
weapons are removed from Ukraine, Kazakstan, and Belarus by the end of
the year, and monitoring the elimination of hundreds of bombers and
missiles from Russia.
[[Page H8162]]
On a positive note, as I mentioned earlier, the bill reflects the
overwhelming bipartisan support expressed in the full committee for a
measure to kill funding for TV Marti, the United States Information
Agency's television broadcasts to Cuba.
TV Marti is a failed experiment. After 8 years and the waste of $100
million in taxpayer's money, virtually no one in Cuba sees these United
States Government television broadcasts.
TV Marti is on the air only between 3:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Unfortunately, the Castro government is very successful in jamming the
broadcasts. The result? No one sees TV Marti.
The objective evidence is overwhelming. In 1994, a Federal advisory
panel stated
categorically that at present TV Martis broadcasts are not
consistently being received by a substantial number of
Cubans.* * * Whatever TV Marti's [other] shortcomings they
are negligible compared to its inability to reach its
intended audience.
A report from the Appropriations own committee staff investigation
concluded there was virtually no audience or policy purpose for
continuing TV Marti broadcasts.
It's bad enough that TV Marti accomplishes nothing. But that's not
the end of the story. National security and drug interdiction efforts
can suffer when TV Marti preempts use of Federal balloons--used for TV
Marti and radar surveillance--on the Florida Keys. That's why in 1993 a
defecting Cuban MiG pilot wasn't detected until right before his plane
landed at Key West Naval Air station. Fortunately, his intentions were
friendly.
The elimination of TV Marti won't diminish our ability to send United
States Government broadcasts to Cuba. Even without TV Marti, Radio
Marti will continue--and many Cubans listen to it. Killing the TV Marti
boondoggle doesn't score a propaganda victory for Castro. It does score
a victory for the American taxpayer.
In conclusion, while I believe the chairman should be commended for
his diligent efforts under such difficult budgetary constraints, I must
say that I have grave reservations about this bill.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a very hardworking member of this subcommittee who
has given us a lot of help in constructing this bill.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 3814, the
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 1997. We are nearing the end of our appropriations work on the
floor of the House but we have saved one of the more important bills
here for the end.
I especially want to commend Chairman Rogers for his excellent work
through a very difficult fiscal climate. Despite the hurdles, the
chairman and subcommittee, I think, brought to the floor of the House a
bill worthy of support. I also want to thank and applaud the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking minority member, for the
bipartisan and cooperative spirit that he has adopted in working on
this bill.
Downsizing Government does mean making choices in spending priorities
and this bill does that. It does it by channeling funds to programs
that we think are in the taxpayers' interest. I do not agree, of
course, with every single decision that is made here but on balance
this is a good bill, a responsible bill, and one that I am proud to be
associated with.
This bill takes a giant step toward addressing the issue of border
enforcement, something that is very important to those of us along the
southwest border. It provides funding to put an additional 1,100 Border
Patrol agents and inspectors on the front lines of the border. Overall
it provides $2.8 billion for the enforcement of our immigration laws.
Funding is also provided for 2,700 more detention cells to ensure that
we can hold for deportation illegal aliens in the United States. That
is 2,000 more beds than have been requested by the administration.
The bill provides $500 million for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program that reimburses States for the costs associated with
incarcerating criminal aliens. The General Accounting Office estimates
that the nationwide cost incurred by States for this could exceed $650
million. This appropriation takes a huge step toward addressing that
problem.
Mr. Chairman, we must recognize that illegal immigration is a
national problem, that it is not just a State problem. This Congress
must reaffirm its commitments to States and local communities because
they are the ones that must contend with the failed immigration
policies of the past. To turn our back on that would be wrong.
The Federal Government does not have all the answers when it comes to
combating the crime we are most concerned about. I do not believe the
Congress should try to manage State and local law enforcement agencies.
Rather, we need to support measures that empower local law
enforcement--H.R. 3814 does just that. This legislation gives maximum
flexibility to local law enforcement officials to administer $571
million for law enforcement and prevention programs instead of
mandating that money be used for specific purposes. The bill will allow
local officials to use funds to put more police on the streets,
purchase needed equipment, fund youth prevention programs, provide drug
court programs, or other urgent needs, according to the priorities
determined by 39,000 State and local entities--not Washington.
Additionally, this bill provides nearly $500 million for the Byrne
grant program that has been used very effectively by local law
enforcement. In my own district, very successful law enforcement
alliances have succeeded because of the availability of Byrne grant
moneys.
Let me shift gears for a moment to address what this bill does with
funding for the Commerce Department. I support restructuring the
Commerce Department. Over the years, this agency has become the dumping
ground for every new function of the Federal Government that didn't fit
someplace else. While this bill does not dismantle the Commerce
Department, it cuts it by nearly 17 percent for fiscal year 1995
levels--a clear signal to Congress to reorder its functions. I will
support amendments to this legislation making further cuts in certain
areas of Commerce.
I am pleased the committee funded the Small Business Administration's
microloan program which has helped create hundreds of jobs in Arizona
at little or no cost to the Government. Organizations like Project PPEP
help to effectively administer these startup loans in areas where this
type of assistance is effectively used and where loan defaults are
almost nonexistent.
The bill provides resources for the State Department to continue its
vital functions across the globe. H.R. 3814 does cut funding just below
last year's spending levels. Contributions to U.N. peacekeeping
operations are kept in check while affording the executive branch
maximum flexibility and the legislative branch maximum oversight.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation that is
both fiscally responsible and attentive to the needs of the American
people.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
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. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Mollohan] and likewise thank the chairman, but I thank the ranking
member for his continued hard work on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I wish that I could rise in overwhelming enthusiasm for
the effort that has been put forward. I do believe, however, there is
room for improvement. In particular I would like to note that we have
been successful. We have stood in the way of the obliteration and
dissolution of the Commerce Department, one of the few departments in
this Nation that is in the Constitution, one of the few that have been
able to claim over billions of dollars of job opportunities and
business opportunities for American businesses, and yet we find that
this appropriation bill gives $756 million below the administration
request, even though the Commerce Department has done its own internal
downsizing.
Juvenile justice grants: I appreciate the funding of such grants and
certainly the funding of violence-against-women grants and the
successful keeping of the 100,000 cops on the beat.
I am concerned, however, when it comes to the Advanced Technology
Program under the Department of Commerce, that we would not consider
the importance of technology creating the jobs of the 21st century and
would be shortsighted in underfunding opportunities for innovative
technology projects to be successfully funded. Our support falls short
in comparison to what is done by our neighbors like Japan and Germany
in investing in
[[Page H8163]]
technology. It is important to recognize that in order to have
businesses succeed, the government must be a successful partner to
business.
I likewise rise, Mr. Chairman, to speak against the drastic and
draconian cuts in the Legal Services Corporation: Only $141 million
given to this agency--over a 50-percent cut.
{time} 1415
What that says is the number of clients will fall from 2.1 million to
1.1 million, that we are saying to America that you can have your
access to justice, but those individuals who are poor, who are
indigent, who are women, who are children, who are the elderly, cannot
have the ability to receive the kind of legal services that the
Constitution provides. Twenty-six thousand poor Americans will get to
access one lawyer with the legal services cuts.
I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, that we recognize the
commitment of this government to be a government of laws and not of men
and women. And so these services should be provided by the Legal
Services Corporation, 323 guarantees provided services to almost 2.1
million clients from 1,100 locations last year, approximately 24
million families are poor enough to qualify for free services. In 1995,
the legal services fund provided 1 lawyer for every 200 low-income
families. Without sufficient funding this year these families cannot be
served.
Legal Services helps us in defending against spousal abuse or child
abuse. It helps us with divorce and separation for indigent families
and women. The Legal Services lawyers help poor people with wage
claims, discrimination, termination, unlawful termination, and
unemployment claims
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, what it does is it simply says you are an
American, too. I am concerned that we do not sufficiently fund the
Legal Services Corporation to serve the poor, so I am supporting the
Mollohan-Fox amendment to increase legal services because that is the
right thing to do, and that would add to a better Commerce, Justice
Department, State Department appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would have risen to offer an amendment to the
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. This amendment would
restore $20 million for the Legal Services Corp. [LSC], which
distributes Federal funds to more than 300 local legal aid
organizations to pay for the representation of low-income individuals
in civil legal matters, such as landlord-tenant disputes, domestic
relations, and Social Security matters. However, I now rise to support
the Mollohan-Fox amendment to increase Legal Services to almost to last
year's funding and if it passes, I will not offer my amendment.
This program provides desperately needed assistance to our Nation's
poor families and individuals. Without some kind of legal aid our
poorest citizens would have no recourse against unscrupulous merchants,
no help in arranging adoptions or enforcing child support orders, and
no protection against abusive spouses.
The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that over 1 million
women a year are victims of violence at the hands of husbands or
boyfriends. Poor women and children, who frequently lack access to
support networks, are especially vulnerable to the vicious cycle of
domestic abuse.
Family law, which includes the representation of victims of domestic
violence, is the single largest category of cases handled by the 278
local Legal Services programs across the Nation. In 1995, Legal
Services programs handled over 59,000 cases in which clients sought
legal protection from abusive spouses and over 9,300 cases involving
neglected, abused, and dependent juveniles.
Legal Services attorneys assist victims of domestic violence in a
variety of ways: obtaining orders of protection, child support, and
divorces from abusive spouses; representing them in child custody
proceedings; assisting them with applications for emergency housing or
other benefits that enable them to escape violent situations; and
helping them make a realistic plan for moving from dependency to self-
sufficiency.
H.R. 3814 would fund the LSC in fiscal year 1997 at $141 million,
which is an extreme cut from the fiscal year 1995 level of $415
million. This cut will result in the virtual abandonment of this
country's longstanding Federal commitment to the legal protection of
low-income individuals, including victims of domestic violence.
Withdrawing aid for this program will effectively shut millions of
Americans out of the justice system.
Cutting the fiscal year 1997 funding level to $114 million will most
likely result in the following: the number of clients served will fall
from 2.1 million in fiscal year 1995 to 1.1 million; the number of
neighborhood officers will fall from 1,100 in fiscal year 1995 to
approximately 550; the number of LSC attorneys serving the poor will
fall from 4,871 in fiscal year 1995 to 2,150; there will be only one
LSC lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans; there will be no legal
assistance for clients in thousands of counties throughout the country;
millions of poor people in rural areas in the South, Southwest, and
large parts of the Midwest, which have virtually no non-LSC funding,
will have extremely limited resources to obtain meaningful access to
justice; and Legal Services programs will be forced to severely limit
their services, resulting in the substitution of brief advice and
referral for complete legal representation in most cases.
By restoring some funding for this vital program, the Jackson-Lee
amendment will help soften the bill's negative impact on the LSC. My
amendment would provide $20 million for the LSC by taking $20 million
from the U.S. Information Agency--International Broadcasting Operations
[USIA], which receives $346.7 million under the bill, and $2 million
from the National Endowment for Democracy, which receives $30 million
under the bill.
The Legal Services Corp. is a representation of this country's
commitment to the ideal of equal justice. By providing access to
justice for millions of Americans, the LSC has given them a stake in
the justice system and a sense that government is meant to be a servant
of the people rather than a master. We must not allow this program to
be gutted--it is fundamental to our Nation's sense of fair play.
Support the Jackson-Lee amendment and help make good on this
country's promise of liberty and justice for all.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman], the very able chairman of the Committee on
International Relations of this House.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill before us.
Under tight budgetary allocations, the gentleman from Kentucky,
Chairman Rogers, and the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan,
ranking minority member, have responsibly crafted a good bill. I
appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky's close consultation with our
Committee on International Relations.
I have been informed there may be amendments to further reduce
operations funding U.S. Information Agency, which I strongly oppose. I
oppose reductions in those activities and point out to my colleagues
that in the budget, the USIA already has been reduced by $6 million
below the fiscal year 1996 appropriated level. The 2-year cumulative
reduction in USIA operating account is now $36 million.
It is gratifying that this bill contains important new directions and
guidance in our war against illicit drugs, and I applaud the gentleman
from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Hastert, the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Zeliff, and all those
who have enhanced funding for international strategy against drugs and
provided direction to the DEA and the source nations. The result is
that there will be more DEA agents on the ground, improvements in
intelligence collection, and more vetted units aimed at the problem of
systematic corruption in many of these nations of illicit drugs and the
traffickers.
In recent years the battle against drugs has not progressed under the
present administration. This is particularly evident in the alarming
soaring drug use since 1992, especially among our young people. This
rise in drug use followed administration decisions that diminished
interdiction resources by nearly one-half while also neglecting source
country eradication efforts. The results have been disastrous.
Mr. Chairman, today's bill reverses some of those unwise decisions
that will help take the battle to the traffickers and the source and
transit zones long before that poison hits our streets and destroys our
young people and adds billions to our societal costs.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two issues in this
bill
[[Page H8164]]
which directly affects women and their families.
First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman
Rogers, for fully funding the Violence Against Women Act. These funds
are needed desperately, and we appreciate the attention to this issue.
However, I would like to reiterate the concerns of the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] which were mentioned previously. Because
the bill was so late and was not signed until April, the funds for 1996
are just being processed. The Department of Justice is doing a valiant
job in getting these funds out.
Many of my colleagues may not think of legal services as a women's
issue, but it clearly is. The funding cuts contained in this bill will
force the Legal Services Corporation to abandon many of the critical
legal services that it provides to poor women, particularly victims of
domestic violence.
In 1995, legal services programs handled over 59,000 cases in which
clients sought legal protection from abuse of spouses and over 9,300
cases involving neglect and abused and dependent juveniles. In fact,
family law, which includes domestic violence cases, makes up one-third
of the 1.7 million cases handled by legal services programs each year.
In addition to helping victims of domestic violence, the lawyers of
the Legal Services Corporation help poor women with many necessary
legal services. For example, the lawyers at legal services assists
mothers and their children to enforce child support orders against
deadbeat dads. They also help women with employment discrimination
cases and parents who are trying to protect their children's
educational interests.
If we slash funding to the Legal Services Corporation, we will be
abandoning hundreds of thousands of women who desperately need legal
help. These women have nowhere else to turn. So please, I ask my
colleagues, let us make sure that we do not short-shrift the women of
America and not turn our back on their families.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the very distinguished chief deputy majority
whip.
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for reversing a trend that has
happened in this country over the last 5 years. This bill changes a
trend that has seen a reduction in drug interdiction. It has seen a
reduction in the ability to stop children from using drugs. Your work,
Mr. Chairman, has changed this whole issue.
What we do in this bill is increase the ability for the Drug
Enforcement Administration to renew counternarcotics attacks on those
countries who grow the drugs and manufacture drugs. We have given our
country the ability to go into those countries and crush those drug
growing and manufacturing areas.
Let me just say one very simple illustration. If you have seen on TV
the last couple nights about ruby red, a new type of heroin that
teenagers use, they smoke it because the purity has gone from 4 to 90
percent. We will be able to stop the infusion through Colombia, who
used to use cocaine, now using ruby red, a more devastating drug to
teenagers then anything we have ever seen.
This bill will help us stop that. I support its passage and really
salute the chairman of the committee who has made this happen.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree with the comments that
my colleague from West Virginia has made regarding the bill and its
benefits and deficiencies. Among other things, I appreciate the
additional resources included in the bill for community policing, a
program which has made such a difference in communities in my district
and around the country.
But, I do want to spend a moment speaker about a grave area of
deficiency dealing with the Advanced Technology Program. This is one
program that promotes partnerships and boosts competitiveness by
encouraging innovation. It is worthy of bipartisan support and adequate
funding. The partnerships created by the ATP allow the U.S. Government
to work with businesses and universities, helping existing
technological leaders to leverage their talent and expertise.
I have seen this take place in my State of Oregon. In the last
several years, we have watched as the companies--which must match
Federal funds--have invested approximately the same amount in ATP
projects as they have received from the Federal Government. These
recipients are developing broad-based technologies, which will not only
make them more competitive globally, but will be creating new
industries and new jobs. In Oregon over the last 5 years, 10 Oregon
participants have joined in ATP projects. Five of these participants
have been small businesses.
For example, Precision Cast Parts in my district is working on
developing large-scale industrial gas turbines which can operate at
higher temperatures. These higher operating temperatures mean increased
fuel efficiency and the option of using a larger variety of fuels.
At Tektronix, over the last 3 years they have been developing the
ADVANCED Program, the Advanced Digital Video Network for Creative
Editing and Distribution Program, a new technology which allows video
to be used just like other electronic data. These programs attract
expertise to the region and to the State. And they create new jobs.
I hope we will take another hard look at this program as this bill
wends its way through the legislative process. The ATP Program needs to
be restored in order for this bill to be worthy of our support.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a
Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary appropriations bill.
This bill provides $2.1 billion in funding for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. That is $30 million more than the
administration requested. The funds for the INS in fact represent a 25-
percent increase over last year, and they demonstrate Republicans'
commitment to reducing illegal immigration.
H.R. 3814 provides the necessary funding to hire 1,100 new Border
Patrol agents. The administration's request would only have funded 700
new Border Patrol agents. This bill also contains a significant funding
increase for the detention and removal of illegal aliens, including
2,700 new detention beds. The administration's request would only have
funded 700 detention beds. Funding is critical to the effective
implementation of America's immigration policies.
I thank Chairman Rogers for the tireless efforts he has made to
secure our borders.
There is another bill which passed the House in March of this year by
a vote of 333 to 87 that also advances immigration reform. H.R. 2202,
the Immigration in the National Interest Act, will soon go to
conference with the Senate. It will benefit American families,
taxpayers and workers by securing the borders, removing criminal and
illegal aliens from the country, and ensuring that immigrants are self-
reliant.
Mr. Chairman, the American people are demanding that we pass
comprehensive immigration reform. I urge my colleagues to provide
sufficient funding for border security by voting ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work done on this bill,
but regrettably the bill sharply reduces critical law enforcement
resources by underfunding the COPS community policing initiative and
legal services and cuts research and technology investments.
Community Policing Services has its roots in New Haven, CT. The New
Haven Police Department began a groundbreaking experiment in community
policing in the early 1990's in response to an extremely high crime
rate. Community policing worked in New Haven to make streets safer.
Because of its success in my district and others, the previous Congress
passed a national community policing initiative
[[Page H8165]]
as part of the 1994 Crime Control Act. Since its enactment, COPS grants
have put over 55 new police officers on the beat in my district,
helping to reduce crime on the streets and providing increased security
to the citizens in my community. This bill level funds COPS and impedes
the ability of police departments in cities like New Haven to do their
difficult job.
I am equally distressed about the bill's attack on the Legal Services
Corporation, which provides essential legal representation to indigent
families in my district, especially courageous women escaping an
abusive partner. Dismantling the Legal Services Corporation will keep
women and children in violent settings and perpetuate domestic
violence.
Finally, I strongly oppose this bill's provision to kill the ATP
public-private partnership that helps small businesses grow and
generate good-paying, high-technology jobs. Health Information Systems
in Wallingford, CT, CuraGen Corp. in Branford, and Alexion
Pharmaceuticals in New Haven are but three examples in my district of
how ATP works to generate good jobs. I strongly oppose killing ATP.
Mr. Chairman, these priorities need to be restored. I urge my
colleagues to restore these important priorities as we consider this
bill.
{time} 1430
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Forbes], a very able and hard-working member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations
bill, and I also rise to thank both the ranking minority and majority
members for the conciliatory and balanced effort that this bill
represents.
There has been every effort to move the spending bills in this
Congress forward in a very dramatic and dynamic way, and I believe all
of us can appreciate the fact that this bill really is a bipartisan
effort to get a balanced spending plan in an environment where we have
dwindling resources.
This is a excellent bill, and I want to compliment not just the
gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, and the gentleman from West
Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, but also the chairman of the full committee,
the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, and of course the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey.
We are all working very, very hard, in a very tough environment,
where we have fewer dollars and great needs, unending needs, and this
is a good bill and I urge its adoption.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The Susquehanna River begins in New York State, flows through
Pennsylvania and then Maryland, and empties into the Chesapeake Bay. It
is a gorgeous river. Everyone loves it. Those who live on either side
of it are happy people. But last January, like many other times in the
history of the Susquehanna Valley, the Susquehanna River turned on us
and in a rage destroyed billions of dollars worth of property and
killed 16 people.
Why do I tell my colleagues this? Because the flood warning system
that we had in place, which this committee was able to put in place
several years ago, was responsible, we believe, for preventing even
further damage. I want to thank the chairman of the committee for
recognizing that pattern of behavior on the part of the Susquehanna
River and for his efforts in making a $1 billion appropriation, upwards
from the 669, where it rested before, in recognition of how dangerous
the Susquehanna can become.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff].
Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for his commitment
and strong support to our Nation's drug war. In the past 2 years I have
worked very hard, traveling through the transit zone and parts of South
America and source country programs and we have seen firsthand the
people out there putting their lives on the line every day with limited
resources.
The sad reality is that we have witnessed a record increase in drug
use among America's children between 1992 and 1995, amounting to an
aggregate increase of nearly 200 percent. This reverses a downward
trend that lasted from 1979 through 1992. That reversal, as everyone
knows, or should know, paralleled unprecedented cuts in drug
interdiction, international programs and other supply reduction
efforts.
The sudden rise in youth drug use and drug related violence is also
accompanied by a dramatic increase in drug availability on America's
streets, and a major increase in the potency of these drugs, especially
cocaine, heroine, marijuana flowing into the United States from
Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, for the best interest of our children and
grandchildren, we need a balanced effort of education, prevention,
treatment, interdiction, and source country programs. Thanks to the
gentleman from Kentucky and his leadership we will have that balanced
effort.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 1 minute,
to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] so that he may yield it to
the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee
for yielding me this time and the ranking member of the subcommittee
for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the difficulties in preparing this
appropriations bill, and I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky,
Chairman Rogers, and the ranking member, the gentleman from West
Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, for the work that they have done in trying to
bring a bill before us that will make a difference.
I applaud the more than full funding of $197,500,000 for the Violence
Against Women Act. It will go a long way.
I am, however, concerned about cuts in the Legal Services Corporation
and the elimination of the superb NOAA corps of commissioned officers
before the forthcoming GAO report. This is certainly premature.
While I support funding for the Technology Administration, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Laboratories, the
Advanced Technology Program, the MEP program, I am deeply troubled by
lack of funding for the NIST construction of research facilities
account, especially since a $30 million rescission was experienced in
fiscal year 1995 and a further $24 million rescission in fiscal year
1996. I believe these rescissions, along with zeroing this out, would
be absolutely detrimental to NIST's meeting its mission.
I look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee to develop
funding for the completion of NIST's 10-year plan to construct and
renovate facilities to allow the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to fulfill its important missions and to live up to U.S.
industries' needs for the new millennium and thereafter.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difficulties in preparing this
appropriations bill and I commend Chairman Rogers for his efforts.
I wish to speak regarding a few provisions in the bill, with
particular emphasis on funding for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology [NIST].
While I support the committee's funding for the technology
administration, and for the NIST laboratories, its advanced technology
program, and its manufacturing extension program, I do have very strong
concerns about the committee's lack of funding for NIST's construction
of research facilities account.
Failure to fund this account would adversely affect NIST and its
ability to meet its mission, and by extension, our Nation's industries
which rely on NIST to compete in the global marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, an independent study in 1991 found that the
overwhelming majority of NIST's facilities will fail to meet program
needs within this decade unless steps are
[[Page H8166]]
taken immediately to renovate and construct its facilities.
NIST's specialized research buildings, needed for world-class
measurement and standards research in support of industry, are fast
becoming scientifically obsolete.
In addition, they suffer from environmental, systems, and safety
flaws.
The decaying state of NIST's facilities already has made it
impossible to provide some of our Nation's industries with essential
services, such as state-of-the-art calibrations urgently needed to
maintain production-line quality controls on a par with overseas
competitors.
Environmental controls which were more than adequate when the
buildings were first constructed over three decades ago are now
completely inadequate for advanced atomic-level research.
Also, the poor quality of NIST power supplies regularly results in
inaccurate measurements, costly delays, rework, and loss of data.
NIST identified $42 million in facilities safety and capacity
projects requiring major retrofitting in that 1991 report.
The project list for this much-needed renovation, since then, has
continued to grow.
In the years since the report was developed, high priority facilities
maintenance problems, requiring an additional $285 million have been
identified.
These projects, now totaling $327 million represent only the most
critical retrofit requirements.
NIST must continue to receive construction funding in fiscal year
1997 to address the highest priority projects from this list.
Mr. Chairman, no one has legitimately disputed the need for NIST's
modernization and renovation. In past years, the Appropriations
Committee has provided funding which keeps NIST's necessary 10-year
modernization project on schedule.
I believe that not providing funding for the construction account at
this time, especially since there was a $30 million rescission in
fiscal year 1995 funding and a further $24 million rescission in fiscal
year 1996, would be absolutely detrimental to NIST's ability to meet
its mission.
I look forward to continue working with the chairman of the
subcommittee to develop funding for the completion of NIST's 10-year
plan to construct and renovate facilities which will bring NIST up to
U.S. industry's needs for the beginning of the 21st century and beyond.
In addition, I am concerned that cuts in The Legal Services Corp.
threaten to abandon impoverished women and children, particularly those
who are victims of domestic violence. LSC has provided critical legal
assistance to these women and children, assuring that they are not
trapped in a violent relationship by helping to get protection orders,
file for divorce, and receive child support. I hope that we will be
able to increase this account before the bill is presented to the
President.
I am pleased that this bill includes $197,500,000 for implementation
of the Violence Against Women Act. This represents more than full
funding and will go a long way in the fight against domestic violence
in our neighborhoods and communities all across this Nation.
The bill underscores the important role of the Federal Government--
working with State and local authorities--in combating domestic
violence, child abuse, and sexual assaults against women in this
country.
Under this bill, funding will be provided to train judges and court
personnel about domestic violence; to train law enforcement personnel
in targeting crimes against women and in implementing effective arrest
policies with regard to domestic violence. The funding will also
strengthen services to women and children who are victimized by these
terrible crimes.
Mr. Chairman, the NOAA Commissioned Corps, one of our Nation's seven
uniformed services, was established at the beginning of the First World
War. It will be celebrating its 80th birthday in 1997, the year that
the administration and Congress have planned its extinction.
A General Accounting Office report has been completed and will be
released in the very near future. I believe that it is premature to
eliminate the Corp by the end of fiscal year 1997, and I urge my
colleagues to wait for this report before taking this irrevocable step.
NOAA Corps' 333 commissioned officers, down already from 370 a year
ago, all have engineering or science degrees, and have been actively
recruited from among students with a grade point average of 3.1 or
better. The Corps boasts an up or out promotion system, and officers
are subject to transfer anywhere throughout NOAA. This traditionally
includes multiple assignments in the air, on land, or prolonged sea
service, often as the commanding officer or chief scientist. Their home
base, however, is most often in Seattle, WA; Norfolk, VA; Tampa, FL; or
at NOAA headquarters in Silver Spring, MD.
I have serious reservations over the wisdom of eliminating this
superb Corps of commissioned officers, who were earlier this month
flying into the eye of Hurricane Bertha, giving invaluable information
to responsible officials up and down the east coast. There is no way to
quantify the number of lives that were potentially saved, or the number
of buildings and homes that were protected, by emergency personnel
having access to this incredibly accurate weather information. Many of
you may remember the picture of the hurricane on the front page of the
July 12 Washington Post. This was taken from an NOAA Hurricane Hunter
aircraft, flown by two retirement-eligible NOAA Corps officers. The
present version of the fiscal year 1997 Commerce Department
appropriations bill, page 54, would retire these flyers and eliminate
their positions.
However, these are only 2 of the 333 officers throughout NOAA--all in
positions of great responsibility and with many years of experience--
that would have to be replaced by civilians or contractors. In
addition, we would lose the backbone of the Nation's nautical charting
program, which is manned by Corps officers. What advantage is there to
eliminate this resource and hire or subcontract replacement,
replacements which may well cost more, and almost surely not have the
same sense of duty and sacrifice that has for 80 years been instilled
in the NOAA Corps?
I have to believe that this scenario is not the result of rational
planning but, sadly, of misinterpreted good intentions. The language in
the National Performance Review asks NOAA to reduce the Corps by 130
officers by fiscal year 1999, and only eventually eliminate the
service. A study conducted by the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson
failed to indicate any monetary benefit, at least in the near future,
should the Corps be eliminated. I fail to see why accelerating this
process at this time, can be anything but detrimental.
Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly pay homage to this
extraordinary Corps of dedicated men and women, who by terms of their
employment, are subject to frequent and prolonged periods away from
home, extremely dangerous, rigorous, or hardship postings--including a
winter's stay in the Antarctic, and who exemplify some of the most
dedicated public servants anywhere in the world.
As one of my constituents wrote me, ``The Nation benefits
significantly from their sacrifice, since uniformed service members can
be sent anywhere at any time to meet any mission, without incurring the
expense or other limitations inherent in a civilian work force.''
Although the uniformed service pay system under title 37 of the United
States Code was designed to compensate for the Corps mobility and field
operations, it can hardly compensate for their dedication in performing
difficult tasks.
I regret that this provision was included in the bill, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in working to ensure that the Senate bill, and
the final conference report, delay this action--allowing time for the
GAO report, requested by Budget Committee Chairman Kasich, to provide
Congress with guidance on how best to shape the Corps' future.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the very able chairwoman of the Committee on
Small Business of this House, a Member who is departing this House
after this term, regrettably.
(Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the authorizing
committee for the Small Business Administration, I rise in strong
support of H.R. 3814 and commend the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman
Rogers, for the excellent work he has done on this appropriations
measure, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from West
Virginia, Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Small Business has had a very good
working relationship with the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations
Subcommittee. We communicated our priorities for funding vital SBA
programs, and Chairman Rogers gave careful consideration to our
recommendations. I am pleased to say that, in most instances, he
accepted our recommendations.
On Thursday, the Committee on Small Business completed its markup of
H.R. 3719, legislation making significant changes and improvements to a
number of SBA programs. These changes were needed to keep the subsidy
rates on our loan programs low, to provide long-term capital to small
business at the least possible cost, and in some cases no costs, to the
taxpayer.
In addition, the committee initiated several pilot programs to move
the liquidation function from SBA employees to the private sector. The
authorizers and Chairman Rogers' subcommittee
[[Page H8167]]
have had to labor under the dilemma of sudden increases in the loan
subsidy rates. These increases are largely due to a reduction in SBA's
recoveries. We have found a number of deficiencies in SBA's liquidation
practices, with liquidations taking far longer than in the private
sector. Moving more of the loan servicing and liquidation functions to
the private sector is, in my opinion, the best way to increase
recoveries. These pilot initiatives will allow us to test that theory
in the 7(a), 504, and disaster loan programs.
The authorization changes contained in H.R. 3719 will work hand in
hand with the funding levels provided in H.R. 3814, to continue the
essential services of the SBA, but at a much reduced funding level from
the administration's unrealistic request. Again, I commend my friend,
Chairman Rogers, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very able gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I of course want to thank the gentleman
from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, for yielding me this time, and I rise
in strong support of this bill. I also want to commend the bipartisan
leadership in the subcommittee for producing a good bill.
Let us make it very, very clear, this legislation fights crime. Not
only does it increase funding or provide funding to train and equip new
police officers and provide for better enforcement along our borders,
but it does something else that is very, very important, and that is,
it provides $680 million in funding for prisons and juvenile detention
center development. In fact, that is $50 million more than the
President asked for.
That is particularly important to States like Illinois, which I
represent, and there is a reason why. If we look at crime statistics,
the biggest increases are in juvenile crime. In fact, in Illinois,
unfortunately, while we are seeing an increase in juvenile crime, there
are only 351 juvenile detention center beds outside of Cook County.
Counties such as Grundy, Kankakee, and La Salle, which I represent, are
seeing an increase in youth crime but no place to put them.
Thanks to this Republican Congress we passed legislation, signed into
law this year, which allows these funds to be used for juvenile
detention center jails. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and look forward to
working with local law enforcement. This is a good bill.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fiscal
year 1997 Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, and also to say to the chairman that I
really appreciate his taking the time and his staff taking the time,
and for the hard work and openness they have put into this bill. The
chairman has kept us on track toward reducing our Federal deficiencies,
and these reductions have made it possible and responsible with an
environmental conscience.
Now, within the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
[NOAA], the budget for the National Marine Sanctuary Program is
maintained at fiscal year 1996 levels. This is very important because
America's 13 marine sanctuaries protect and preserve some of the
Nation's most significant ocean resources.
I am fortunate to have two marine sanctuaries within my district, the
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and the southern tip of the
Monterrey National Marine Sanctuary. These and the 11 other sanctuaries
provide safe habitats for many threatened and endangered marine
species.
Furthermore, NOAA's National Ocean Service monitors the health of the
coast and probes how our use of the Nation's near shore waters affects
the environment. This critical information is used to help assess the
effects of oil spills and coastal pollution.
Again, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and his staff
for his hard work on this appropriations bill and for the wise manner
in which he has kept us on track.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take particular note today of a
small item in the Department of Justice budget--the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This agency, which began in 1974
with a focus on noncriminal juvenile offenders and four programs, now
addresses a full range of juvenile issues, from violent juvenile crime
to the victimization of children through child abuse and neglect. The
office administers 13 programs under the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act and the Victims of Child Abuse Act. The
budget which totals a modest $162 million, returns huge dividends for
America's children and families.
We are at a critical time in the history of our juvenile justice
system. It is facing a surge in violent crime and spiraling increase in
reports of child abuse and neglect. It is under attack as not being
effective in dealing with these problems.
America is frightened of crime and violence, and more specifically,
of violent crime committed by youth. Indeed, to a certain degree,
America is becoming frightened of many of its youth. Is there good
reason for this fear? In looking at recent arrest data for violent
offenders, the greatest increase is in the category of offenders under
the age of 15. As to weapons offenses, there was a 23.2 percent
increase for offenders under the age of 15, as opposed to a 4.8 percent
increase for offenders over 18.
OJJDP has taken a two-pronged approach to addressing these issues,
stressing the need to provide safety in our communities through
accountability and sanctions programs, while at the same time making
every possible effort in the areas of prevention, early intervention
and rehabilitation. In addition OJJDP has recognized that this society
must support its families in their attempts to provide the care their
children need. This approach is supported by recent research sponsored
by OJJDP and others that clearly demonstrates the linkages between
abuse and neglect, delinquency and violence.
Dr. Terry Thornberry, in his causes and correlates study sponsored by
OJJDP, found that adolescents from families with two or more forms of
abuse present, are close to three times as likely to report committing
violent offenses as their peers from nonviolent families. Cathy Spatz
Widom, in her cycle of violence study sponsored by the National
Institute of Justice, found that childhood abuse and neglect increases
the likelihood of arrest as a juvenile and as an adult. The direct
connection between child neglect and violence is striking--12.5 percent
of neglected children will be arrested for a violent offense by the
time they reach age 25. The connection between physical abuse and later
violence is even high at 15.8 percent.
These correlations are significant, for they tell us that while we
must provide for the immediate safety needs of our communities, through
adequate law enforcement efforts and accountability and sanctions, we
must also intervene early in the lives of our children and help to
enrich the life experience of our youth if we are to have a chance to
dramatically reduce our crime rate. That is why OJJDP is fostering such
programs as: parent training classes to give parents the tools they
need to be effective in dealing with and nurturing their children; Head
Start to make certain high-risk children are ready for school and have
a fair chance to succeed; community public health teams; after school
programs to give children a positive activity in which to participate;
mentoring to provide positive role models; conflict resolution in
schools, the community, and juvenile justice settings; home visitation
programs to help new families nurture and care for their children;
truancy and dropout reduction programs designed to keep kids in school
and give them the tools they need to be self-sufficient; and community
policing efforts to bring many of these interventions together as part
of a strategy to provide safe and supportive neighborhoods.
That is why OJJDP's child protection programs--missing and exploited
children, court-appointed special advocates, improvement of the
dependency court system, prosecutor training on child abuse and
neglect, and the establishment, expansion and improvement of a network
of children's advocacy centers across the country are so important.
They will serve to prevent the next generation from becoming violent
delinquents and from abusing their own children.
In fiscal year 1996, OJJDP announced a $3 million competitive program
funded by OJJDP, the Violence Against Women Office and the Weed and
Seed Program. Entitled ``Safe Kids/Safe Streets: Community Approaches
to Reducing Abuse and Neglect and Preventing Delinquency,'' this $2.7
million program seeks to reduce juvenile delinquency by helping to
break the cycle of child and adolescent abuse and neglect. It will do
this by coordinating community services, both public and private, in
order to make the system more accountable by providing a continuum of
services.
This is just 1 of 11 new competitive programs funded by the office in
fiscal year 1996.
[[Page H8168]]
The others include: Juvenile mentoring; community assessment centers;
juvenile gun violence reduction; native American, disproportionate
minority confinement, and gender-specific services training and
technical assistance programs; field-initiated research; and four
independent evaluations of the mentoring, child abuse and neglect,
assessment center, and juvenile gun violence reduction programs.
These exciting new initiatives respond to identified State and local
needs to prevent and reduce violence and improve the juvenile justice
system's ability to respond to juvenile violence and victimization.
They join an array of prevention, early intervention, graduated
sanctions, and system improvement programs that will be continued in
fiscal year 1997 with funds under this appropriation.
I encourage my House colleagues to learn more about this important
program and the outstanding work OJJDP is doing on behalf of America's
children.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish the record to reflect
my opposition to the measure before us. Let me state at the outset that
there are provisions in this bill that I strongly support, namely the
committee's focus on the growing problems created by methamphetamine. I
am hopeful that these provisions, coupled with the President's national
methamphetamine strategy, will begin to turn the tide on this highly
destructive drug. I also support the committee's efforts to strengthen
the ability of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to patrol our
Nation's borders.
However, I must oppose the bill because it contains unacceptably
severe cuts to the Legal Services Corporation [LSC]. The LSC is a not-
for-profit organization which provides legal access to poor and
indigent citizens who would normally be shut out of our country's legal
system. This bill contains a cut of $137 million from the fiscal year
1996 level and is almost $200 million below the President's request.
SInce 1975, the LSC has worked to ensure access to the justice system
for millions of Americans who otherwise could not afford assistance
with urgent civil legal problems. Legal services programs provide
representation and counseling for people facing issues such as
substandard housing, domestic violence, child custody disputes, and the
myriad needs of victims of natural disasters.
The cuts contained in the bill will take a very real human toll on
our citizens. What these cuts mean, as the First Lady wrote recently,
is that--
Somewhere a couple and their young children will have to
sleep in an unheated car or on the street because of an
unlawful eviction; a woman will be forced to cower in her
bedroom, a victim of domestic violence; and a child will go
hungry because his father refuses to pay child support.
In my State of California, LSC-funded programs are major providers of
civil legal services. In fact, LSC funds accounted for approximately 45
percent of the funds available for civil legal services to the poor in
California in 1995.
Access to justice is the great equalizer in American society. Equal
Justice Under Law is not only one of our Nation's founding precepts; it
is also the promise inscribed on the pediment of the Supreme Court
building itself.
The serious reduction in the fiscal year 1997 LSC appropriation
effectively undercuts this promise, and I urge my colleagues to support
an increase to the LSC budget.
I am also troubled by the $110.5 million cut to the Advanced
Technology Program [ATP]. ATP has enjoyed wide bipartisan support in
the past and has been extremely effective in building partnerships
between industry and government. Using modest Federal funds to leverage
private sector contributions has resulted in many successful efforts in
the fields of high technology and scientific research.
ATP is the very sort of program utilized by our global competitors to
achieve important advances in the industries of tomorrow. I believe
that the substantial cut to the ATP budget is very short-sighted.
I am also disappointed that the committee has funded the COPS office
at $576 million below the President's request. COPS has been a
tremendous success nationwide. It has provided funding for over 44,000
positions across the country. In my congressional district, over 230
law enforcement positions have been funded and more are on the way. The
COPS Program has assisted communities large and small, rural and urban,
in funding the best and most effective deterrent to crime--the officer
on the beat. COPS funds not only the hiring of officers, but also the
purchase of equipment and technology, the hiring of civilians, and the
payment of overtime.
Mr. Chairman, this bill contains several provisions that I strongly
support. On balance, however, I must oppose this bill.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to recognize the fine work of
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary under the leadership of Chairman Harold Rogers for their
support for the Susquehanna River basin flood warning system [SRBFWS].
Mr. Chairman, as many of my colleagues know, this past January the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, along with other Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern States, were devastated by one of the Nation's worst
floods on record. By the time the waters subsided in Pennsylvania, more
than $1 billion in property damages were sustained and 16 lives were
lost. According to the U.S. Geological Survey's Water Resources
Division: ``The Susquehanna River Basin in central Pennsylvania was hit
hardest by the January 19-21 flood.'' If it were not for the 24 hour
monitoring provided by the SRBFWS, thousands of people living along the
river would not have been evacuated and brought to safety.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today because contained in the bill before us,
H.R. 3814, the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bill, is an increase in
funding for the SRBRWS from the fiscal year 1996 level of $669,000 to a
fiscal year 1997 level of $1 million. This increase funding is
significant when considering that the Federal Government has already
obligated more than $100 million in disaster relief to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania for the January 1996 floods. A dollar spent on flood
warning today will save us from spending far more in disaster relief
tomorrow; clearly, this is money well spent.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to point out to the Members of the
House that Chairman Rogers provided this funding after meeting his
subcommittee's overall budgetary restriction consistent with our
balanced budget goal. Once again, I thank Chairman Rogers for his work
and leadership.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of this legislation. I wish to add my compliments and thanks to
Chairman Rogers and the staff for their hard work in crafting a bill
that has such widespread support. The chairman and the subcommittee
staff have put together a very solid bill. Although discretionary
spending is above last year's level, it remains below the level enacted
2 years ago. The members of the subcommittee faced extremely difficult
decisions in determining the funding levels for the various programs
funded in this bill.
The bill reflects the Republican commitment to public safety and law
enforcement by targeting resources toward the war on drugs, important
crime initiatives, and the protection of our Nation's borders.
Over $7.1 billion is included in the bill to restart the war on
drugs, including a $167 million increase for the Drug Enforcement
Administration. This includes a new $75 million initiative targeted at
source countries, restoring successful international drug efforts to
1992 levels, and a $56 million initiative to stop trafficking on the
Southwest border.
We are seeing increased drug activity and illegal alien immigration
occurring on Federal forest lands along the Southwest border. In
response, the committee report urges both INS and DEA to work
collaboratively with the Forest Service to reduce illegal alien and
drug activity on Federal forest lands. With the increased resources
provided to both agencies, the committee expects additional efforts
will be undertaken to address this pressing problem.
I was pleased that the bill continues the 3-year phase-out of the
Legal Services Corporation and continues the restrictions we placed on
LSC's activities. I am aware of at least one amendment that will be
offered later today to increase the funds provided to LSC. I urge all
of my colleagues to vote against such an attempt and continue the
phase-out of Federal funding.
Finally, I appreciate the chairman working with me so that a
provision dealing with religious broadcasters could be included in the
bill. The language in the bill simply prevents the FCC from using
appropriated funds to deny a license, license transfer or assignment,
or license renewal for any religious entity on the grounds that its
recruitment and hiring of employees is limited to persons of a
particular religion, or persons having particular religious knowledge,
training, or interest.
I would like to address the provisions of this addition, which I
authored and which is strongly supported by a number of our colleagues
on the Appropriations Committee. I wish to outline the intent of the
provision, and the direction we have provided to the Federal
Communications Commission. First, I wish to be sure that the
requirements of the provision are not misrepresented as the debate over
this bill continues to the other body. Second, and perhaps more
importantly, I wish to provide clear direction to the FCC, and do
everything possible to assure that the agency understands, and can
execute the direction we have provided.
The Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Subcommittee has discussed
the matter in the
[[Page H8169]]
past with the FCC. Last year, I offered a similar amendment but chose
to withdraw the legislative solution to the problem in favor of report
language. Unfortunately, we saw no response to the direction the
committee provided the Commission, and this year bill language was
included in the appropriations legislation.
In January 1994, Chairman Hundt announced that the agency's priority
would be to promote diversity in broadcasting. Because the policy came
on the heels of a 2-year FCC inquiry into NAACP allegations that
several radio stations had not fully complied with the FCC's equal
employment opportunity [EEO] rule, the policy was apparently aimed at
stations that discriminated against minorities.
In reality, the FCC has used its new charge to challenge and deny
radio license applications or renewals for religious broadcasters on
the grounds that they discriminate by requiring religious knowledge,
training or expertise for employees.
In secular stations, there is a fundamental necessity to hire people
who have a certain level of knowledge of the format and content of the
station's programming. For example, an all-sports station hires people
with adequate knowledge of sports. Financial and economic news stations
require staff with an education or experience in such issues. And
classic rock stations need people who know the difference between Frank
Sinatra and Led Zeppelin.
The absurdity in the FCC's diversity policy is that it discriminates
against religious broadcast stations for attempting to insure some
knowledge or expertise by employees of the station's content. The
conflict lies in the FCC's determination of which positions have
substantial connection with program content.
For example, the FCC believes that a receptionist is not connected
with the espousal of a licensee's religious views, and therefore, a
knowledge of the station's position is an inappropriate job preference.
However, when the public calls in to comment on a program or to
question a particular aspect of a broadcast, the receptionist is
usually the first person at the station with whom they have contact. A
basic knowledge of the station's programming would certainly be useful.
My provision exempts a case currently pending at the Federal
Communications Commission. In Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod, the
Commission designated for hearing the license renewal applications of
two radio stations owned by the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod [LCMS].
Although the FCC staff concluded that there was no evidence of any
intentional discrimination by the church, the staff recommended to an
administrative law judge that the church lose its license for the
station despite the station's exemplary compliance record with all
other commission rules and regulations. The FCC staff contend that the
church violated the Commission's equal employment opportunity rule by
requiring knowledge of Lutheran Church doctrine and practices for many
positions at the station. The ALJ did not find denial of the renewal
applications to be appropriate given the lack of evidence of
intentional discrimination against minorities. The ALJ's decision was
appealed to the Commission's Review Board, which adopted a decision
affirming the ALJ's decision and ordering the license renewal
applications granted for a short term.
Although the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod case was exempted in the
provision, this case was the impetus for inquiries to the FCC and the
basis for the legislative language. In my opinion, this case is in more
need of the bill language than any other. I agreed to the exemption so
that Congress would not be interfering with an ongoing case at the FCC.
However, I hope that the Commissioners and staff will take note of the
strong congressional support for the bill language and will move
forward expeditiously to settle this matter with the Lutheran Church/
Missouri Synod.
It is my understanding that a number of license renewals are pending
before the Commission. This limitation language will only apply to
religious broadcasters and their recruitment and hiring of employees
based on religious knowledge, training or interest. This language does
not limit the Commission's ability to deny a license for other reasons,
including EEO violations.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-678 if offered by
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] or his designee. That
amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 17, 1996, it
shall be in order immediately after disposition of the amendment
printed in the report to consider an amendment relating to the advanced
technology program, if offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers].
During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record.
Those amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be
less than 15 minutes.
After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
The Clerk will read.
{time} 1445
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3814
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, namely:
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment printed in
House Report 104-678.
amendment offered by mr. rogers
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: In title I, under the
heading ``Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local
Law Enforcement'', after ``and of which $12,500,000 shall be
available for the Cooperative Agreement Program'' insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That funds made available
for Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing
Incentive Grants to the State of California may, at the
discretion of the recipient, be used for payments for the
incarceration of criminal aliens''.
In title II, under the heading ``Economic Development
Administration, Economic Development Assistance Programs'',
after ``September 30, 1982,'' insert the following: ``and for
trade adjustment assistance,''.
In title II, under the heading ``National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Operations, Research, and
Facilities'', strike ``$180,975,000'' and insert
``$182,660,000'', and strike ``$431,582,000'' and insert
``$429,897,000''.
In title V, after the matter under the heading
``Administrative Provisions--Maritime Administration'',
insert the following:
``Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement
``salaries and expenses
``For necessary expenses of the Commission on the
Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement, as authorized by the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
$2,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1998.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a noncontroversial amendment that all parties are in
agreement with. It provides four main items which I will summarize and
then hopefully yield back the balance of our time so that we can
proceed.
This is a manager's amendment that, first, provides flexibility to
California so that they can use their State prison grant funds to fully
fund the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in the State, a
particular problem in California.
Second, it allows the Economic Development Administration funding to
be used for trade adjustment assistance centers, as has been the case
in past years.
Third, it increases funding for the national marine sanctuaries
program by $1.68 million to last year's level, offset by decreasing
funding for satellites by the same amount.
[[Page H8170]]
Fourth and finally, it provides $2 million for the Commission on the
Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement recently authorized under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
Those are the four main provisions in the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
They are noncontroversial. I am prepared shortly to yield back the
balance of my time, unless there are other Members who desire to be
heard.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July
17, 1996, it is now in order to consider the amendment relating to the
Advanced Technology Program, if offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Rogers].
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: On page 54, strike the
language on lines 3 through 15, and insert the following:
``In addition, for necessary expenses of the Advanced
Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, $110,500,000, to remain available until expended,
of which not to exceed $500,000 may be transferred to the
``Working Capital Fund'': Provided, That none of the funds
made available under this heading may be used for the
purposes of carrying out additional program competitions
under the Advanced Technology Program: Provided further, That
funds made available for the Advanced Technology Program
under this heading and any unobligated balances available
from carryover of prior year appropriations for such program
may be used only for the purposes of providing continuation
grants for competitions completed prior to October 1, 1995:
Provided further, That such continuation grants shall be
provided only to single applicants or joint venture
participants which are small businesses: Provided further,
That such funds for the Advanced Technology Program are
provided for the purposes of closing out all commitments for
such program.''
Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a compromise
reached with the authorization committee chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], regarding the use of funding provided for
the Advanced Technology Program under NIST. The bill funds ATP at
$110.5 million, an amount sufficient to provide final year funding to
close out commitments for awards previously made to small businesses
under the ATP program. The amendment modifies language in the bill to
clarify that funds are being provided only for this purpose.
Specifically, the amendment adds language to the bill to clarify
that, first, funds provided for continuation grants are only for small
businesses and only for those small businesses who were awarded an ATP
grant prior to fiscal year 1996 and, second, funds are being provided
for the purpose of closing out all commitments for the ATP program.
Under the rule, if my amendment is adopted, points of order will be
waived against all provisions in the bill, including the Advanced
Technology Program and the Technology Administration.
The amendment further clarifies congressional intent regarding the
ATP program and ensures that Congress will have an opportunity to fully
consider and debate these programs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me
and for working with the authorizing committee on implementing our
policies and priorities regarding NIST and NOAA as passed by the House
on May 30 as a part of H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science
Authorization Act.
I just want to clarify and confirm the intent and effect of the
chairman's amendment. If passed, the language will provide the terms
and conditions for the termination of the Advanced Technology Program
in fiscal year 1997; is that correct?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the authorization chairman is correct. My
amendment adds language to the bill which specifies that the funds
provided in the bill are only for the purpose of closing out all
commitments under the ATP program.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
appreciate the chairman's confirmation. With the adoption of this ATP
termination language, I have agreed to drop the point of order striking
the ATP closeout funding of $110.5 million. The language of the
manager's amendment which he drafted with me sets the statutory ground
rules for ending this program. It is consistent with the authorization
committee's action not to authorize continuation of ATP.
I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
(Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the gentleman's amendment. This
amendment is the result of an agreement reached among Chairman Rogers,
Mr. Walker, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, and
myself.
Mr. Chairman, I have an extended statement that I will submit for
the Record. I only want to say that I support this amendment, but I
stand here today as a staunch supporter also of the Advanced Technology
Program. I will only vote in favor of the amendment because it is the
only alternative to zero funding for ATP as this bill moves forward in
this process. So I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the gentleman's amendment.
This amendment is the result of an agreement reached among Chairman
Rogers, Mr. Walker, the distinguished chairman of the Science
Committee, and myself.
If this amendment is adopted, the funding contained in the bill for
the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program and the
Technology Administration will be protected from a point of order.
Without this amendment, funding for these critical initiatives will be
stricken from the bill.
I agree to support this amendment only as a means to protect funding
for ATP and TA, not because I agree with it in principal. In fact, I am
extremely opposed to placing any additional restrictions on the funding
provided for ATP. I believe this program should be a national priority.
ATP is about investing in our Nation's competitiveness in the global
market place. It does nothing more than put U.S. industry on a level
playing field with our major global competitors.
As we sit here today foolishly placing more restrictions on ATP and
severely cutting the program's funding, our foreign competitors are
pouring money into similar initiatives.
The European nations are accelerating investment in commercial
technologies. Japan has plans to double its government science and
technology budget. And China is planning to triple its investment in
R&D by the year 2000, targeting computers, software,
telecommunications, and infrastructure.
Simply stated, the United States is in a battle for global markets,
where the spoils are jobs and national prosperity. And we are in a dead
heat. Funding ATP helps give us the competitive edge we need.
I realize that some of you on the other side of the aisle are ATP
skeptics. But I continue to assert that ATP is critical to our Nation's
long-term competitiveness. And although the program is young, there are
already numerous success stories.
For example: As a result of an ATP grant award, a small company in
Woburn, MA, has developed a cost-effective method for inactivating
viruses in human blood plasma products. Currently, there are no
commercially available technologies for inactivating protein-encased
viruses in biological products. You can imagine the impact this
technology will have in both economic and human terms. Aphios Corp.,
has gone from employing only 2 people to providing jobs for more than
20 virologists, molecular and cell biologists, and biomedical, chemical
and mechanical engineers. That is pretty impressive high-technology job
growth.
But--contrary to what a few of my Republican colleagues would have
you think--the
[[Page H8171]]
commercialization of this technology will not be financed by the
Federal Government. The CEO of Aphios predicts it will take an
additional $5 million to get the technology to the commercial phase.
This will be private sector money--leveraged by the initial investment
made by the Federal Government.
Another success story--X-ray Optical Systems, Inc., a small company
in Albany, NY, has developed a new type of lens that focuses x-rays in
a concentrated beam. It allows users to control where the beam is
directed. Using infusions of private capital, that it was able to
leverage as a result of its ATP award, the company began sales of
neutron-focusing optics and x-ray optics for material analysis.
According to officials at the company, ATP has provided about a 5- to
8-year jump on the technology development and allowed it to stay in the
United States.
These are just two of many success stories resulting from ATP grant
awards.
So, I stand here today a staunch supporter of the Advanced Technology
Program. However, I will vote in favor of this amendment. It is the
only alternative to zero funding for ATP as this bill goes to
conference. I ask my colleagues to join me in my support of this
important initiative.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the administration of the
Department of Justice, $71,493,000; of which not to exceed
$3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 43
permanent positions and 44 full-time equivalent workyears and
$7,477,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership
Program only for the Offices of the Attorney General and the
Deputy Attorney General, exclusive of augmentation that
occurred in these offices in fiscal year 1996: Provided
further, That not to exceed 71 permanent positions and 85
full-time equivalent workyears and $8,987,000 shall be
expended for the Offices of Legislative Affairs, Public
Affairs and Policy Development: Provided further, That the
latter three aforementioned offices shall not be augmented by
personnel details, temporary transfers of personnel on either
a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis or any other type of
formal or informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel or
funds on either a temporary or long-term basis.
counterterrorism fund
For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney
General, $9,450,000, to remain available until expended, to
reimburse any Department of Justice organization for (1) the
costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability
of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed
as a reuslt of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City or any domestic or international
terrorist incident, (2) the costs of providing support to
counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or international
terrorism, including payment of rewards in connection with
these activities, and (3) the costs of conducting a terrorism
threat assessment of Federal agencies and their facilities:
Provided, That funds provided under this heading shall be
available only after the Attorney General notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
amendments offered by mr. rogers
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments, and I ask
unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Rogers: On page 14, line 21,
under the heading ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salaries
and Expenses'', strike ``$117,081,000'' and insert
``$133,081,000''.
On page 2, line 24, at the end of the paragraph under the
heading ``General Administration, Salaries and Expenses'',
insert the following new paragraph:
``In addition, for reimbursement of expenses associated
with implementation of drug testing initiatives for persons
arrested and convicted of Federal offenses, $7,000,000, to
remain available until expended.''.
On page 25, line 20, at the end of the paragraph under the
heading ``Justice Assistance'', insert the following new
paragraph:
``In addition, for local firefighter and emergency services
training grants, $5,000,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 819 of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132;
110 Stat. 1316).''.
On page 69, line 10, strike ``$125,000,000'' and insert
``$131,000,000''.
Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides funding for three
important crime and security initiatives.
First, it provides $7 million for Federal drug testing initiatives to
address the use of illegal drugs by defendants who cycle through the
Federal criminal justice system. The bill already provides $25 million
under the Byrne formula grant program for State drug testing
initiatives. The Federal drug testing program will augment current drug
testing that is performed by the courts during pretrial custody and
during probationary periods.
It will ensure that prosecutors are aware of the drug status of the
defendants they prosecute and that appropriate measures are taken
before drug-using defendants in pretrial detention or probationary
status are released back into the community.
Second, the amendment provides $5 million for training of
firefighters and public safety officials in order to better equip them
to assist law enforcement officials in response to terrorist attacks.
Funding for this training program was authorized in the antiterrorism
bill.
Third, the amendment provides $6 million in funding for court
security under the Federal Judiciary to respond to concerns expressed
by the judiciary that adequate funding be available to fully equip and
staff courthouses that are scheduled to come on line in fiscal year
1997.
This funding is provided by moving $16 million from nondefense
discretionary spending to defense discretionary spending within funding
provided for the FBI in order to free up discretionary funds for these
important crime initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
I, first of all, want to thank Mr. Rogers for his diligent efforts on
behalf of this bill. Having included in this bill $7 million for the
establishment of a Federal drug testing initiative for prisoners,
arrestees, and those recently released from Federal prison and on
probation, the chairman has been a reasonable and thoughtful
legislator, and I appreciate the work of him and his staff.
Essentially, we are going to set aside about $7 million to enable the
Federal drug testing program to take place, an effort that I believe
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] made at the
subcommittee level and was intended certainly by the administration.
Second, it would set aside, within the $25 million that the bill
currently sets aside for the purposes of drug testing, that comes out
of the Byrne grant program. The concern is that the moneys would be so
diluted and otherwise diverted that States and local governments would
not be able to establish drug testing programs of any significance.
If the States distribute the drug testing programs using strict
formula distribution practices, no jurisdiction in the country will
have enough money to implement a workable statewide or systemwide
program.
It is also my understanding that the original administration
proposal, as developed by the Justice Department and others, was
intended to be made available under a competitive grant process where
jurisdictions would compete for funds made available in only those
amounts which would allow for comprehensive drug testing.
What are the intentions of the chairman as the House goes into
conference with the Senate with respect to the implementation of the
$25 million Byrne grant program?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the $25 million included in
the committee report under the formula funds of the Byrne grant
program, it is my intention to see that these funds be
[[Page H8172]]
made available under the formula distribution. Under the bill, States
and localities decide their own priorities. Under this bill, these
priorities may include drug testing.
It is also my intention to see that those States seeking to encourage
drug testing initiatives at the local level should establish a
competitive grant program with interested local jurisdictions.
It is my intention to work with the gentleman from Massachusetts and
others who have an interest in the program to clarify this further in
the expected conference with the Senate. I thank the gentleman for his
comments.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, I appreciate the chairman's comments. I appreciate
he and his staff's willingness to make certain that we divide these
moneys. If you take the $25 million and simply divide it around the
country and provide $500,000, $400,000, or $800,000 per State, you are
never going to have the kind of comprehensive system that we are
looking to create.
I appreciate the chairman's willingness to devise a program that can
actually work at the local level. We will not have enough money to make
this a national program. In the localities where the program actually
goes into existence, there will be the necessary funds to make the
program comprehensive and successful. I appreciate the chairman's
willingness to make this program a reality.
{time} 1500
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I want to rise to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for
working with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and I to reach a
compromise on this important amendment dealing with the fire and
emergency services in this country.
As our colleagues know, terrorism is no longer a foreign problem, it
has hit American soil, and we must better prepare ourselves to deal
with it. We all know the situations that have occurred over the past
several years involving attack to the World Trade Center, the attack at
the Oklahoma Murrah Federal Building and, most recently, TWA flight
800. In each of these tragic cases our Nation's first responders were
the first on the scene to actively work to save lives.
While I applaud the work of the fire and emergency services personnel
from New York and Oklahoma, overall our Nation's first responders are
unprepared and untrained on how to respond to terrorist events.
Accordingly, fire and emergency service providers, especially in
metropolitan areas, unfortunately need specialized training, strategic
and tactical training, on how to handle the gamut of known types of
terrorist attacks.
Last year, Congress recognized the importance of terrorism training
and acted to provide our Nation's first responders with crucial
funding. In fact, Mr. Chairman, right now in the defense conference we
are working on Nunn-Lugar II, which my panel is overseeing to deal with
this issue to further enhance the lead taken in this particular bill.
I applaud the work of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] for
his leadership in this effort, and I especially applaud the
subcommittee for their aggressive effort to provide funding in the form
of the chairman's amendment or mark to provide funding for the Nation's
fire and emergency service.
We have 1.5 million men and women in this country, Mr. Chairman, from
32,000 departments who respond to disasters every day. What this
amendment will do is allow FEMA to provide some training in the area of
dealing with these most difficult situations that face this country and
our metropolitan areas.
So with that I rise to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]
and thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] for their support of this first responders
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, when I drafted this amendment last week I had no idea
that it would take place in the shadow of the tragedy of TWA flight
800. The fact is, whether my colleagues think the downing of the TWA
flight was an accident or an act of terror, it is inevitable that some
day our Nation's firefighters, paramedics and emergency response teams
will be put to the test. They will have to respond to an emergency
terrorist situation that may involve lethal chemical, biological and
nuclear materials. My amendment funds a modest grant program created in
this year's terrorism bill to help them prepare for a terrorist attack.
It strongly supported by fire chiefs and firefighters who know
firsthand how much more work needs to know done in this area.
Why is the amendment needed? Well, we know that the first 3 to 6
hours after the terrorist attack are the most crucial period for
treating the injured, containing damage and searching for survivors. In
this short time frame Federal help can usually not get to the scene.
Local responders will be the linchpin for the entire operation.
Recently in three cities, my city of New York, Los Angeles and New
Orleans undertook surprise preparedness tests for different kinds of
terrorist attacks. In New York the test was a simulation of a deadly
gas like that used in the recent terrorist attack in Japan. It was
leaked into the subway, but because they had not received the proper
training, every first responder would have perished had the gas been
real. In L.A. and New Orleans the results were the same. With the first
line of defense out of the way, a terrorist attack involving chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons will be that much more deadly to
civilians.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it would be wonderful if we could turn
back the clock to a time when terrorism was someone else's problem. But
we cannot. We cannot hide and pretend that terrorism will not touch our
lives. America unfortunately faces an increasing threat from terrorism
within our borders, and those who are first on the scene must be
prepared.
I am pleased and grateful that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers], the chairman, and the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], have agreed to support this amendment and
include it in the manager's amendment. Let us put the odds of surviving
a terrorist attack in our favor.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 416,
noes 1, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 340]
AYES--416
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
[[Page H8173]]
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--1
Taylor (MS)
NOT VOTING--16
Collins (IL)
Fazio
Ford
Gallegly
Istook
Lincoln
Matsui
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Rose
Saxton
Tauzin
Waters
Williams
Wise
Young (FL)
{time} 1523
Mr. OLIVER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments were agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a
colloquy with the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to this bill aimed
at restoring funds to an important program known as the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program
helps small- to medium-sized manufacturing firms, most of which have
been impacted by either GATT or NAFTA. Trade adjustment assistance is a
tool used to help companies compete with foreign competition without
interfering with trade. It is the only program in the Federal
Government that does not directly interfere with free and open trade
and is not a trade barrier.
TAA has helped save 597 companies between 1989 and 1995, saving and
creating over 78,800 jobs, 12.2 percent job growth, and among those
firms assisted, Mr. Chairman, sales have increased by $1.8 billion.
Originally the language in the bill and the accompanying report would
have provided no funding for the trade adjustment assistance program.
However, it is my understanding that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers], the chairman of the subcommittee, has included language within
his manager's amendment to allow funds under the Economic Development
Agency to be used for the trade adjustment assistance.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the committee, will he
confirm this?
Mr. ROGERS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman will note we
have included language within the manager's amendment which will allow
the EDA to use funds available for the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's position
that the House will urge in conference committee that the trade
adjustment assistance program should be funded at least at the same
level as in fiscal year 1996?
Mr. ROGERS. I would say to the gentleman, yes, the committee will
clarify that it is the position of the House to fund all EDA programs,
including the trade adjustment program, at the fiscal 1996 level.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
As a point of further clarification, is it the understanding of the
chairman that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is authorized to
receive appropriations through fiscal year 1998, as detailed in the
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993?
Mr. ROGERS. That is correct. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993 provided an extension of authority for the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program through fiscal year 1998.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for that further
clarification, and I commend him for his willingness to work with
Members on issues that have concerned them. In particular, I thank the
chairman for his leadership, and his staffers for their diligence and
cooperation on this issue dealing with trade adjustment assistance.
Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman for his interest and his hard work
on behalf of these centers.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia and I, would
like to engage our colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman
of the subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding the District of
Columbia's Department of Corrections facility in Lorton. VA.
{time} 1530
Without reviewing the entire troubled history of the correctional
complex at Lorton, I would like to share with my colleagues some very
compelling facts. First, as the gentleman from Kentucky is aware, the
D.C. government has allowed the prison population there to double over
the last 12 years, and at the same time the appropriation level today
is the same as it was 12 years ago, double the population, same
appropriation, and during that time we have had intervening court
decisions requiring more upkeep, inflation and the like.
We have had the head of the D.C. Department of Corrections, Margaret
Moore, before our Subcommittee on the District of Columbia coming
forward and just saying they need help. The city right now is swimming
in a sea of red ink and they cannot handle this complex by themselves.
They have asked us for help. The Mayor's plan calls for the downsizing
and closing of most of this facility over the last 5 years.
What we would do, Mr. Chairman, is appreciate your support for
including a statement of managers language in the conference report
that would direct the Attorney General of the United States to
undertake a joint review with the
[[Page H8174]]
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and the District
of Columbia for immediate steps necessary to first address the security
problems at the Lorton corrections complex as identified in current and
ongoing studies by the National Institute of Corrections, and frankly I
would also think we should ask of the Bureau of Prisons to work with
the Department of Corrections in the District to work out a strategy to
close this complex and perhaps rebuild it, hopefully somewhere else,
over a given time period, the next 5 to 7 years.
That is what I would like to see from my perspective. I know Mr. Wolf
and Mr. Moran have some equally compelling feelings and arguments on
this.
Mr. ROGERS. My colleagues from Virginia have been tenacious in
bringing the problems at Lorton prison to my attention. It is certainly
a situation which needs to be addressed in the near future. As the
gentleman have requested, I will work in conference to secure language
directing the Attorney General to look at this problem with the D.C.
Department of Corrections and report to the Congress on necessary
steps.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to second what the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Davis] said and hope that we can work together with the chairman
of this committee, but also some of the other committees, to see how we
can do what the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] and the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and others like, and that is to shut Lorton
Reformatory down in a set period of time.
Most of the major crimes that are committed in the District of
Columbia and this region are committed by people who have served time
in Lorton. There is no rehabilitation down at Lorton. There is no drug
treatment down at Lorton. You cannot put men in a prison for 10 and 12
years with no training, no rehabilitation, and expect them to come out
and be good citizens.
I share the concerns of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and
also the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. I look forward to working
with the chairman of this committee and other committees to see what we
can do in very short order to deal with this issue.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note, no other
city in the United States is responsible for housing the felony
prisoners, no other city in the United States. We have put this burden
on the District of Columbia, and they have, I think to their credit,
come forward and said they do not have the financial wherewithal to
handle it under their current financial circumstances.
That is why we need to engage the Bureau of Prisons, working with the
city, with the National Institute of Corrections, with the Congress, to
find a way that we can handle this situation in a more equitable manner
than it is being handled today, along the lines that I have outlined.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
In this very bill, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago I put money in for the
National Institute of Corrections to study Lorton, to determine how bad
it was and what could be done. They finished their report. We have
their report. It says the situation is real bad. They suggest that
dramatic action needs to be taken. The time to take dramatic action was
yesterday, or last year, or several years ago.
I see my good friend and colleague, Ms. Norton, standing, who
represents the District of Columbia so ably. She has a plan to reduce
the tax rate to 15 percent, which would cost about $700 million. I
think the chances of getting that are problematic, but I wish her luck
in trying to push it forward.
There are other solutions, another more obvious solution right in
front of us. That is to relieve the District of Columbia of
responsibilities that it should not have to and cannot maintain. It
cannot run the kind of a prison that a State would be expected to run.
Yet Lorton Reformatory, Lorton Prison is burying the District in debt,
in embarrassment, in all kinds of horror stories in the paper. It
further undermines the credibility of the District government.
They should not have to maintain this prison. It is too much. It is a
State responsibility, we think, I think, and I think a lot of others
feel this is a Federal Bureau of Prisons responsibility, that it should
be put under the Bureau of Prisons. It should probably be closed and
moved to a place, for example, in Pennsylvania. We have some districts
that feel it is a win-win situation. They would love to have the jobs,
to rebuild it somewhere like that, where it is still accessible, it is
not as close but it is still accessible.
We can do a good job. We can put in real rehabilitation, not teach
prisoners how to farm and to milk cows, and so on, which might have
been appropriate generations ago, but certainly not now. We need to
teach them the most modern skills in construction, electronics, and the
like.
We need to start all over again with Lorton. We need to move at least
the maximum security people to a new prison. We need to build that new
prison. We need to start doing that today. To put this off another year
is irresponsible. We cannot even afford toilet paper for the prisoners,
for crying out loud. Every day you read about the situation worsening.
It is our responsibility to do something about it. The vendors have not
been paid in months. They are not going to continue providing the
necessary supplies. Every day that this goes forward it is our
responsibility to do something about it.
I really wish that we would put more attention to this possibility of
putting it on the Bureau of Prisons. I think we should have had an
amendment on this appropriations bill. I would hope we would in the
future, and maybe we can get something in the District of Columbia
bill.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the colloquy now in progress. I
would say to my good friend on this side of the aisle from Virginia,
any comparison between what you now desire here and my tax bill is
nonapt. These are the only nontaxpayers leaving the District that we do
not welcome back. But this is also the only State responsibility that
any Member of this Congress has stood to help the District with. We are
the only city in the United States that bears responsibility for State
prisoners along with Medicaid and every other State responsibility.
I welcome the attention that this matter is now given, even if it
comes from the fact that it is in the State of Virginia. When mutual
interests come together, that may be the best way to solve a problem.
My good friends are correct that conditions at Lorton are detestable
and that it is irresponsible to wait until a prison crisis develops,
even as we have waited until a financial crisis has developed in the
District. Everyone knows that the District is powerless at the moment
to do anything about conditions at Lorton because of the insolvency of
the city. The mayor and I have indicated that we would accept some
measure of Federal responsibility despite the fact that home rule
figures large for all of us. But we have also said that that Federal
responsibility must come with Federal funds and those funds have not
even been requested and there is very little movement, when there could
have been some, to find a practical way to get there.
We do not expect that the Bureau of Prisons where the Federal prisons
lie will simply eat D.C. prisoners. These are felony inmates of a kind
that are fairly rare in the Federal system. The Federal system is
beyond capacity. We have to bring a problem-solving approach here. I
have absolutely no objection to what the Members are trying to do. As
long as they include me and the District in what they are trying to do,
they will find that I have no objection. But we have to do more than
simply beat up on the Bureau of prisons. We have to in fact
analytically make our way through this problem step by step until we
find a way for Federal responsibility consistent with home rule and
funding to obtain in this matter. I thank the gentlemen for their
concern.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. Would the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia agree
to
[[Page H8175]]
a proposal that we set a 5-year time limit, at which time we would hope
to have at least part of Lorton, perhaps the maximum detention, moved?
Ms. NORTON. Time limits without a way to get to that point are
meaningless, especially when the city is insolvent.
Mr. MORAN. What we are talking about is not making the Bureau of
Prisons eat it but building a prison that would house Lorton but with
Federal funding, because there are different sentencing rules that
apply to D.C. versus other Federal sentencing guidelines. So we
probably need to keep them as a discrete population. We are talking
about building a new facility, for example. If we could do that and do
that within a reasonable period of time, the gentlewoman would not
object to that.
Ms. NORTON. I would have no objection to a plan that takes us toward
that goal step by step and year by year with a funding bill to that
end.
Mr. MORAN. Does the gentlewoman agree that we have done enough
studying, that it is time for action?
Ms. NORTON, Absolutely. It is time for an implementation plan. That
is what has been missing from this issue.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS. I think once again to resolve this problem in a way
favorable to the inmates, to the surrounding communities and everybody
else, it takes a joint effort. So far what is missing from this debate
is a Federal presence thought the Bureau of Prisons. The city has gone
overboard in trying to look at privatization alternatives and the like
and the Mayor's visionary plan, in fact, calls for the downsizing, if
not the elimination, of the Lortion complex. But we are going to need
some help.
What we are asking the chairman of the committee to do in this
particular case is to direct the Bureau of Prisons to become engaged in
this process so that we can come up with a proposal. Last year's
District of Columbia appropriations bill had some language where we
have asked the city to come up with a 5-year plan to close it. Now we
need to see what BOP can take and if it is going to take money, we need
to know what it is, but we need their involvement. It is unrealistic to
ask the city government to do this by themselves. It is the only city
in the country that does it.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
through page 12, line 18, be considered as read, printed in the Record,
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 12, line 18 is as follows:
Administration Review and Appeals
For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and
clemency petitions and immigration related activities,
$64,000,000.
violent crime reduction programs, administrative review and appeals
For activities authorized by section 130005 of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-322), as amended, $48,000,000, to remain available until
expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $31,960,000; including not to exceed
$10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential
character, to be expended under the direction of, and to be
accounted for solely under the certificate of, the Attorney
General; and for the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and
operation of motor vehicles, without regard to the general
purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year.
United States Parole Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Parole
Commission as authorized by law, $4,490,000.
Legal Activities
salaries and expenses, general legal activities
For expenses, necessary for the legal activities of the
Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including
not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to
be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for
solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and
rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of
Columbia; $420,793,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000
for litigation support contracts shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the funds available in this
appropriation, not to exceed $17,525,000 shall remain
available until expended for office automation systems for
the legal divisions covered by this appropriation, and for
the United States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, and
offices, funded through ``Salaries and Expenses'', General
Administration: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall be available to the
United States National Central Bureau, INTERPOL, for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1342, the Attorney General may
accept on behalf of the United States, and credit to this
appropriation, gifts of money, personal property and
services, for the purposes of hosting the International
Criminal Police Organization's (INTERPOL) American Regional
Conference in the United States during fiscal year 1997.
In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the
Department of Justice associated with processing cases under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 as amended,
not to exceed $4,028,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Trust Fund.
violent crime reduction programs, general legal activities
For the expeditious deportation of denied asylum
applicants, as authorized by section 130005 of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-322), as amended, $7,750,000, to remain available until
expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund.
salaries and expenses, antitrust division
For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and
kindred laws, $76,447,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, not to exceed $58,905,000 of
offsetting collections derived from fees collected for
premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Radino
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the
General Fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections
are received during fiscal year 1997, so as to result in a
final fiscal year 1997 appropriation from the General Fund
estimated at not more than $17,542,000: Provided further,
That any fees received in excess of $58,905,000 in fiscal
year 1997, shall remain available until expended, but shall
not be available for obligation until October 1, 1997.
salaries and expenses, united states attorneys
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Attorneys, including intergovernmental agreements,
$931,029,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000 shall be
available until September 30, 1998, for the purposes of (1)
providing training of personnel of the Department of Justice
in debt collection, (2) providing services to the Department
of Justice related to locating debtors and their property,
such as title searches, debtor skiptracing, asset searches,
credit reports and other investigations, (3) paying the costs
of the Department of Justice for the sale of property not
covered by the sale proceeds, such as auctioneers' fees and
expenses, maintenance and protection of property and
businesses, advertising and title search and surveying costs,
and (4) paying the costs of processing and tracking debts
owed to the United States Government: Provided, That of the
total amount appropriated, not to exceed $8,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses:
Provied further, That not to exceed $10,000,000 of those
funds available for automated litigation support contracts
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
in addition to reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears
available to the Office of the United States Attorneys, not
to exceed 8,758 positions and 8,989 full-time equivalent
workyears shall be supported from the funds appropriated in
this Act for the United States Attorneys.
violent crime reduction programs, united states attorneys
For activities authorized by sections 40114, 130005,
190001(b), 190001(d) and 250005 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as
amended, and section 815 of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132), $43,876,000,
to remain available until expended, which shall be derived
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of which
$22,166,000 shall be available to help meet the increased
demands for litigation and related activities, $500,000 for
telemarketing fraud, $10,577,000 for Southwest Border
Control, $1,000,000 for Federal victim counselors, and
$9,633,000 for expeditious deportation of denied asylum
applicants.
united states trustee system fund
For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee
Program, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 589a(a), $107,950,000, to
remain available until expended and to be derived from the
United States Trustee System Fund: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, deposits to the
Fund shall be available in such amounts as may be necessary
to pay refunds due depositors: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $107,950,000 of
offsetting collections derived from fees collected
[[Page H8176]]
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 589a(b) shall be retained and used
for necessary expenses in this appropriation and remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
1997, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1997
appropriation from the Fund estimated at $0: Provided
further, That any such fees collected in excess of
$107,950,000 in fiscal year 1997 shall remain available
until expended but shall not be available for obligation
until October 1, 1997.
salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $878,000.
salaries and expenses, united states marshals service
For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals
Service; including the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and
operation of vehicles and aircraft, and the purchase of
passenger motor vehicles for policy-type use, without regard
to the general purchase price limitation for the current
fiscal year, $460,214,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i);
of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses; and of which not to
exceed $4,000,000 for development, implementation,
maintenance and support, and training for an automated
prisoner information system, and $2,200,000 to support the
Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That, with respect
to the amounts appropriated above, the service of maintaining
and transporting State, local, or territorial prisoners shall
be considered a specialized or technical service for purposes
of 31 U.S.C. 6505, and any prisoners so transported shall be
considered persons (transported for other than commercial
purposes) whose presence is associated with the performance
of a governmental function for purposes of 49 U.S.C. 40102.
violent crime reduction programs, united states marshals service
For activities authorized by section 190001(b) of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public
Law 103-322), as amended, $25,000,000, to remain available
until expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund.
federal prisoner detention
For expenses, related to United States prisoners in the
custody of the United States Marshals Service as authorized
in 18 U.S.C. 4013, but not including expenses otherwise
provided for in appropriations available to the Attorney
General, $405,262,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i), to
remain available until expended: Provided, That this
appropriation hereafter shall not be available for expenses
authorized under 18 U.S.C. 4013(a)(4).
fees and expenses of witnesses
For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of
witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and
supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel
expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law, including advances, $100,702,000, to
remain available until expended; of which not to exceed
$4,750,000 may be made available for planning, construction,
renovations, maintenance, remodeling, and repair of
buildings, and the purchase of equipment incident thereto,
for protected witness safesites; of which not to exceed
$1,000,000 may be made available for the purchase and
maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of
protected witnesses; and of which not to exceed $4,000,000
may be made available for the purchase, installation and
maintenance of a secure, automated information network to
store and retrieve the identities and locations of protected
witnesses.
salaries and expenses, community relations service
For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service,
established by title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
$5,319,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, upon a determination by the Attorney
General that emergent circumstances require additional
funding for conflict prevention and resolution activities of
the Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may
transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service,
from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for
the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to
such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer
pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as a
reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
assets forfeiture fund
For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(A)(ii), (B),
(C), (F), and (G), as amended, $30,000,000, to be derived
from the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.
amendment offered by mr. mollohan
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Mollohan: On page 12, line
21, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced
by $14,000,000)''.
On page 21, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $45,000,000)''.
On page 53, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $33,748,000)''.
On page 66, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following; ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
On page 73, line 1 after the dollar amount, insert the
following: (``reduced by $14,000,000)''.
On page 99, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.
On page 99, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.
On page 103, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000)''.
On page 103, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
On page 106, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the time
be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be
recognized for 30 minutes in support of his amendment. Who seeks to
control the time in opposition?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the co-author of this amendment, and I ask
unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania will
control 12 minutes in support of the amendment.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Mollohan].
{time} 1545
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my distinguished colleague from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] in offering an amendment to increase funding for
the Legal Services Corporation. Simply put, the Mollohan-Fox amendment
increases funding for the Legal Services Corporation from $141 million
to $250 million.
As many of my colleagues know well, the Legal Services Corporation
was created in 1974 as a private, nonprofit corporation. Since then,
the Legal Services Corporation has worked to ensure access to our
judicial system for Americans unable to afford assistance with their
civil legal problems. The Legal Services Corporation, for many of our
poorest, most vulnerable citizens, has helped make the most basic tenet
of our judicial system, equal justice under the law, a reality.
About 34 percent of the cases closed by Legal Services Corporation
attorneys in 1995 were in the realm of family law, 22 percent were
housing related, 16 percent were related to income maintenance, and 10
percent were consumer problem oriented.
The Legal Services Corporation provides grants to about 280 programs
operating over 900 neighborhood law offices serving every county in the
United States. In 1995, Legal Services Corporation handled over 2.1
million cases across this Nation.
I cannot stand before my colleagues today without acknowledging the
fact that in the past the Legal Services Corporation has not been
without its share of problems, some of which have occurred in my own
home State of West Virginia. But over the last year, the Legal Services
Corporation has undergone major changes. The omnibus appropriations
bill, which included the fiscal year 1996 appropriations for legal
services, contained many new legislative requirements for the Legal
Services Corporation. This bill contained
[[Page H8177]]
restrictions on legal services which were more or less agreed to on a
bipartisan basis, although not unanimously.
For example, a competitive grant process was put in place, and
grantees are now required to provide audited financial statements. They
must also maintain strict timekeeping records.
Many restrictions are in place governing the type of cases that the
Legal Services Corporation lawyers can work on. These restrictions
prohibit cases in many areas. Many of these areas go to the core of the
major concerns of most Members of this body about Legal Services
Corporation. They include restrictions on legal services lawyers taking
such cases as drug-related evictions from public housing. Legal
Services Corporation lawyers now cannot take class action litigation.
They cannot deal with abortion-related activity.
Legal Services Corporation cannot deal with redistricting questions
or political demonstrations. Legal Services Corporation cannot get
involved in strikes or union organizing activities. They cannot get
involved in litigation to influence welfare reform initiatives.
Those are just a few of the examples of the restrictions that we
placed on Legal Services Corporation and under which their lawyers
operate today. I note to my colleagues that the Mollohan-Fox amendment
does not change in any way a single one of these restrictions. They are
still in place and will be in place after the passage of this
amendment.
The Mollohan-Fox amendment simply increases funding for grants to the
basic field programs by $109 million, raising the total funding for
legal services for fiscal year 1997 to $250 million.
Mr. Chairman, it was an excruciatingly difficult exercise to go
through and find the offsets for this $109 million amendment. The
offsets for the amendment are as follows: Department of Justice, assets
forfeiture fund, $14 million; Bureau of Prisons, $45 million; Patent
and Trademark Office, $34 million; Court of Appeals and District
Courts, $12 million; Diplomatic and Consular Affairs, $14 million;
Securities and Exchange Commission, $25 million; and the National
Bankruptcy Review Commission, $10,000.
I would now like to take this opportunity to turn to the issue of
what happens if we do not pass this amendment. What happens if funding
remains at the level of $141 million as provided in H.R. 3814? What
needs, Mr. Chairman, go unmet?
Without increased funding, it is expected that the 2.1 million
clients served in fiscal year 1995 will fall to about 1.1 million. The
number of neighborhood offices will decrease from 1,100 in 1995 to 550.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment. The harm will be to
the most needy for legal services, and it will be great if our
amendment is not adopted.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman from West Virginia
that he is not attempting to change any of the restrictions that were
placed on legal services last year. But part of the deal, part of the
agreement that was placed in legal services was there was to be a
reduction, a gradual reduction. Rather then zeroing out legal services,
we agreed that it would be taken down to $141 million.
Now the gentleman proposes to nearly double that amount, breaking
that agreement. How long will it be that we say those other
restrictions placed on legal services are unnecessary and then we will
be wanting to take those off.
Let us look at the history, 20 years of history of an organization
that did not help the poor. It in fact punished the poor and used them
as an excuse for a very liberal agenda. The Legal Services Corporation
supported drug dealers against public housing authorities, tax-paid
public housing authorities. It voted to keep illegal immigrants in even
while we were paying the INS and other Federal agencies to try to stem
the flow of illegal immigrants.
It supported appeals and worked against the prison systems of this
country to separate patients with AIDS from other prisoners in order to
stem the spread of AIDS inside prison systems. It moved in other areas,
in one case to support a rapist to get custody of the child, the
product of his rape, even though that rapist had two other illegitimate
children, was in jail, and his psychiatrist said he was in no position
to be a parent of any children.
All of this is the legacy and the history of the Legal Services
Corporation. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that legal
services in this Nation will not end if we maintain the reduction,
agreed upon reduction to $141 million.
First of all, let us talk about legal services. It is really two
areas of legal services in this country. First of all, there is the Big
Government legal services that the gentleman from West Virginia, [Mr.
Mollohan] wants to double the funding for, the one that has had 20
years of abuse in this country.
There is the great portion, the majority of legal services, which are
small community-based legal services organizations. The poor will not
be denied free legal services. Even legal service organizations,
nontaxpayer organizations receive more than the majority of the funding
of all legal services, as a matter of fact in this country, and comes
from non-tax paid sources.
In the last 5 years, nonfederal funds for legal services grew by 82
percent and continues to grow. The American Bar Association's directory
of 1993-94 listed over 900 pro bono legal services organizations,
services not funded by the U.S. taxpayer, not part of the Big
Government legal services that is being debated here today. There are
millions of dollars of increases in interest on lawyers' trust
accounts; IOLTA is the term.
Over 25 States including California and New York have increased their
IOLTA grants by 21 percent. North Carolina alone increased its grant by
$1.2 million. These funds are increases. These go into community-based
legal services programs. There are not funded by the U.S. taxpayers.
These are not Big Government programs. Numerous national organizations
contribute to legal services aids today: United Way, the NAACP, the
ACLU and others.
Eighty percent of the bar still is not participating in pro bono
programs. There is room, plenty of room with 80 percent of the bar to
participate and increase its pro bono service. The difference in
efficiency between the Big Government program being advocated and my
friend from West Virginia wants to double the funding for, it is much
more inefficient than the local community-based organization.
Now, is that not a surprise when the Federal Government gets
involved, it always costs more. For instance in Chicago, the private
legal services in Chicago, some 25,000 inquiries, the average price was
about $80 per case. In Chicago they operated that service with nine
staff people. The 79-person staff, nationally funded, Big Government
legal services supported program cost $250 per case. And that is really
no surprise when we consider that, any time the Federal Government is
involved, there is usually more cost, and it moves more toward
political correctness and liberalism than it does toward service for
the poor. Taxpayer money is being used in the Big Government legal
services to fight tax-paid organizations. Let me give my colleagues an
instance.
In one case there was a woman, an unmarried woman with a child, a
drug addict. The child was taken away by the social services for its
protection because the woman clearly was incapable of handling the
child. Legal services sues the social services agency to get the child
back. The woman then beats the child to death within 2 weeks after
getting the child back. Here is a tax-paid organization, in this
particular case, who used their best judgment, the medical authorities.
They had to make a ruling on behalf of the citizens of the country in
removing the child for its safety. Here is the taxpayer, large
government, legal services suing the social services for the mother to
get the child back.
What I am saying, we do not have the information to support that kind
of suit. There was a suit to give the child back, not what the measure
of damage was or threat to the child or anything else. This was
strictly a suit to get the child returned to the mother.
Now, there are many other cases that we can show where legal services
fights federally funded agencies with tax-paid dollars. It would make
much more sense to reform those agencies if necessary. Where does the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] suggest we get the funds to
shift to the Big Government legal services? First of all,
[[Page H8178]]
he wants to take $12 million from our Federal courts even as we put
more and more cases on our courts, and it is necessary for those court
cases to be had to get violent criminals off the street.
Mr. Chairman, $14 million would come from the State Department's
consular services although we would slow down drastically visitation
and legal immigration into this country; $45 million from the Federal
prison system at a time when we need to increase prison system funding,
here again to address the question of violent criminals.
I remind the House that this program never has been authorized in its
history, that for 20 years it did not keep time records. It did not
allow auditing, and the agreement that was made last year to bring
about those reforms also called for the reduction to go to $141 million
which we should keep in this House.
I urge the House to vote against the Mollohan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join the gentleman from West Virginia
in offering the Mollohan-Fox amendment to restore vital funding to
legal services for the poor in the United States. I can speak with
firsthand knowledge of the benefits of these legal services having
served on the board of directors of my own local legal aid office in
Montgomery County, PA.
In every district throughout this country, there are citizens who
find a need for legal services and assistance at trying times in their
lives. While there may be some private resources available in some
areas, there is no guarantee that a private lawyer or group will be
there to offer pro bono service.
{time} 1600
The Philadelphia Bar Association raised $100,000 in private donations
last year to direct toward legal services. However, this valiant effort
cannot even scratch the surface of need that exists among our poor.
There are 40 million Americans at or below the poverty level. In
State after State studies show that no more than 20 percent of the
legal needs of the poor are being met. Even with full funding for the
Legal Services Corporation and the efforts of the private bar, the
legal needs for low-income Americans exceed all available resources.
Even with full funding, no one can argue the poor will have equal
access to the courts. In offering this amendment, we are merely
attempting to ensure that the indigent of our Nation have some access
to the courts.
This Congress, through the appropriations process, made significant
changes to the structure of the administration of the Legal Services
Corporation. Most, if not all, of the concerns and objections about the
program were responded to. Legislative language, including the
appropriations bills, included appropriate restrictions on class action
lawsuits, legal assistance to illegal aliens, or representing
individuals evicted from public housing due to sale of drugs. These
were all changed.
Now it is time to let the program operate to fulfill the purposes
which we all endorsed, to meet the day-to-day legal problems of the
poor. The program helps millions of poor Americans stay self-sufficient
and productive citizens. Properly structured and supervised as it can
be, this is a fundamentally conservative program, one which facilitates
the peaceful resolution of disputes in our society and reinforces the
rule of law.
Further cuts in funding will constitute a denial of equal justice
under the law to millions of low-income citizens who have no other
access to the courts. For this reason, I urge Members to support Legal
Services and to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation is a
Government bureaucracy that is out of control, and it must be tamed.
The spending cut reflected in this appropriations bill is based on an
agreement reached in July of last year between appropriators and House
leaders. The proposed $141 million level is the agreed upon second step
in this process.
Legal Services has long been involved in political advocacy with tax
dollars. For example, over the years, Legal Services has committed vast
resources to litigation to stop public housing authorities from
evicting dangerous drug dealers. This is a perfect example of why
critics argue that Legal Services works harder to protect the rights of
criminals than it does to protect their victims. After years of abuse,
the Corporation has become a place for attorneys to put forth their
liberal agenda, not defend poor people.
Many Legal Services supporters are not aware that sufficient private
alternatives already exist to provide more effective legal assistance
to the poor. Lawyers have a long history of providing free legal
service to the poor; for example, the American Bar Association's 1993-
94 directory of pro bono legal services listed over 900 programs. This
does not include the innumerable lawyers who perform these services on
an individual basis. These private-sector programs are much more
effective and do not waste the taxpayers' money.
The House should continue to abide by the agreed level of
appropriations for Legal Services. Reject the Mollohan amendment and
support the funding level in the bill.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox
amendment. For over a decade now the gentleman from Florida,
Representative Bill McCollum, and I have worked to reform the Legal
Services Corporation, with a lot of considerable help from the
gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, and it has been like pulling
teeth.
Our intention all along has been to make sure that the folks in our
country who cannot afford legal assistance in civil matters have access
to the courts, the original intent of LSC. Last year we introduced H.R.
1806, a bill to reauthorize LSC for 5 years at $250 million per year.
In addition, our legislation proposes tough, smart restrictions on the
corporation.
The full Committee on the Judiciary marked up its bill, H.R. 2277,
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Gekas, and reported it
out last September. This is a 4-year authorization which recommends
$250 million in fiscal year 1997 to provide legal services to the poor.
That notwithstanding, we have not had the opportunity to debate this
or any other authorization bill here in the full House. In fact, Legal
Services has not been reauthorized since 1980, yet here we are today
trying to decide its fate in a 1-year appropriation bill.
Let us let the process work the way it is supposed to. Let us take
the authorizing committee's recommendation of $250 million with
appropriate restrictions for fiscal year 1997, and come back next year
and address the future of LSC through the authorization process, the
right way.
All of the arguments we will hear today come down to one fundamental
question: whether we believe that the Federal Government has a role to
play in ensuring that the poor have access to the courts. I will be the
first one to tell my colleagues that the Legal Services Corporation has
had its share of problems over the years, and we will hear many of them
today. In fact, if the program is ever killed, it will be by some of
its supporters.
Absent any other well-developed approach to caring for the people
that depend on legal assistance in their daily lives, I am not yet
willing to demolish the LSC. That is precisely the direction we will be
heading if we cut the fund to $141 million.
As a lifelong supporter of a balanced budget, I understand budget
realities and know we cannot fund every program at the level we want.
That is why I commend the sponsors of this amendment, who have worked
extremely hard in finding the offsets to pay for this amendment in a
fair and reasonable manner.
Additionally, I am very pleased that they specify that all the
increased funding will go to field programs, not to management and
administration.
[[Page H8179]]
We continue all of the restrictions agreed to on the LSC in the effort
to make sure that this program works for its original purpose.
There can be no denying that there are a large number of indigent
individuals who desperately need legal assistance in their daily lives.
We cannot become a country where just treatment in the courts depends
on economic status.
For this reason, and in agreement with many of those who will find
things that have gone wrong with Legal Services, this is not the time
and the place to make that decision. Let us allow the program to
continue and allow the full changing of the program to take place in an
orderly manner, so that we do not end up doing more harm than good for
all the right reasons.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume to remind this body that the Committee on the Budget
only approved $95 million for Legal Services, and the CJS committee is
putting up a 50-percent increase over that, and now it would be a 250
percent increase if we adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton].
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Texas just
talked about the changes that were made in the Legal Services
Corporation and how Legal Services was going to be restricted for its
original intended purpose. Let me read to my colleagues what a Legal
Services grantee in California said about the new restrictions. He
said, ``If Congress can screw people with technicalities, we can
unscrew them with technicalities. That is why we are lawyers and not
social workers. Two can play this game.''
Now, Congress prohibited Legal Services Corporation from doing
certain things. Legal Services grantees are getting around these
restrictions by forming new shell organizations to accept Federal
grants so that the original groups can continue to pursue their liberal
agenda with private funds.
For example, the Philadelphia Legal Assistance Center and the Legal
Aid Society of Santa Clara, in many cases the two organizations have
the same board of directors, many of the same lawyers, and they share
office space. They are two separate organizations in name only. They
are just getting around the restrictions so they can do whatever they
damn well please.
Let me just ask my colleagues a question. If there is a child and we
are concerned about that child being molested by a sex offender, we
would like to know if that sex offender moved into the neighborhood
because we do not want a 2, 3, 4, or 5-year-old child running around
with a known sex offender moving into the neighborhood.
Well, President Clinton supports what is called Megan's Law. On May
17, President Clinton signed Megan's Law into effect, which requires
convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local
communities after being released from prison.
The Legal Services Corporation is fighting that law. On March 6 the
Legal Aid Society of New York, an LSC grantee, sued on behalf of three
sex offenders to block New York's version of Megan's Law, which
includes a 900 number for community notification. They won a
restraining order delaying the implementation for months.
Legal Services lawyer Thomas O'Brien called sex offenders, listen to
this, the Legal Services lawyer Thomas O'Brien called sex offenders
``the victims of a unilateral decision made by the State.''
Now, what about that parent that does not want their child molested
by that sex offender? They want to know if he is in the neighborhood.
Everybody agreed to it. We passed a law, and the Legal Services
Corporation, funded by this Government and the taxpayers of this
country, is defending that sex offender and protecting his right not to
be known in a new neighborhood by the parents who have kids that might
be molested by him.
Does that sound right? I do not think we want our taxpayer dollars
spent for that.
Welfare reform. President Clinton supports Wisconsin's welfare reform
plan. On May 18 President Clinton announced his strong support for
Wisconsin's bold welfare reform plan.
The LSC is fighting the welfare reform plan in Wisconsin. Legal
Action of Wisconsin, and LSC grantee, has filed numerous suits to
frustrate and block welfare reform in Wisconsin, even though this
Congress and the President of the United States say that support it.
Why are taxpayers' dollars being used to fight the very things we
think are important?
Then we take people who live in public housing projects. One of the
problems we have in major urban areas around this country is that drug
dealers are taking over in public housing projects, and they are taking
kids and they are making them become deliverers of narcotics. If the
kids do not join the gangs, they shoot them, they beat them up or they
scare them to death. Mothers are afraid to let their kids go outside in
public housing projects.
Now, the Legal Services Corporation is defending the right of the
drug dealers to stay in the public housing projects. They are trying to
frustrate the local government officials in trying to get those people
out of there so that people who live in those public housing projects
will be able to protect their kids and protect themselves.
Some of those people have been in their living rooms and dining rooms
when bullets have come through the windows and they have to get down on
the floor to protect themselves, yet the Legal Services Corporations in
many parts of the country are defending the rights of the drug dealers
to stay in there, in public housing, and not to be evicted.
What kind of nonsense is that? It makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever.
Now, an agreement was reached to phase Legal Services Corporation out
over a 3-year period. We gave them $280 million or so last year, we
agreed to $141 million this year and zero next year. The leadership
signed onto it and the appropriations leadership signed onto it, and
today we are seeing a move to increase it to $250 million and to keep
this organization in effect.
It is the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is protect the
people of this country and get rid of the Legal Services Corporation.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
from Indiana, Congressman Burton, that I understand his arguments and
the situation he is talking about, but I would ask him if he is aware
there are new restrictions now on these Legal Services Corporations not
to be involved in suits dealing with welfare reform litigation and with
the prison lawsuits? There are not involved in that any more.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not
know whether the gentleman heard the first part of my argument, but the
Legal Services Corporations around the country are forming shell
corporations to get around that provision so they can use Federal
dollars for one thing and the private dollars for another.
I gave two examples: The Philadelphia Legal Aid Center and the Legal
Aid Society of Santa Clara. I will quote once again what a Legal
Services grantee in California said. He said, and I quote, ``If
Congress can screw people with technicalities, we can unscrew them with
technicalities. That is why we are lawyers and not social workers. Two
can play this game.''
They are getting around what we tried to do by putting constraints on
them in this Congress of the United States.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
continue to yield, I think the facts show otherwise.
{time} 1615
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the facts do show
otherwise.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is trying to
make emotional arguments about the facts and problems of the inner
cities.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, these are not emotional
arguments.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
[[Page H8180]]
(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise today in strong support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment to
restore critical funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I think it
is important, Mr. Chairman, that we put this in perspective.
The bill before us today contains a 50-percent cut for legal
services. This 50-percent cut follows on last year's cut in funding of
33 percent. These cuts, Mr. Chairman, are extreme and they are
unconscionable because they mean that our poorest and most vulnerable
citizens will be unable to have legal representation in civil matters.
In Minnesota alone, Mr. Chairman, these cuts meant that 25,000
eligible people who needed legal help have already been turned away.
Because of last year's cut, Legal Services in Minnesota will close
4,000 fewer cases. Some claim that the private bar can step in and make
the difference.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in Minnesota, over 3,000 attorneys last year
donated over 30,000 hours of legal services. The Minnesota lawyers and
firms contributed over $500 thousand, but they cannot meet these
critical legal needs alone any more than doctors can meet the critical
medical needs of indigent people across this country.
Many government entities are not known for efficiency. We all know
that, and charges have been made today by opponents of this amendment.
Let me tell you the facts. Mr. Chairman, 97 cents of every LSC dollar
goes directly to the delivery of legal assistance, and Federal
oversight accountability of these dollars is ensured.
I take a back seat to nobody in this body in terms of cutting
wasteful spending. Last year it was announced, or this year rather,
that I have the best rating from Citizens Against Government Waste for
cutting wasteful spending.
Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about cutting wasteful spending
here. We are talking about honoring those words on the front of the
Supreme Court across the way, ``Equal justice under law.''
There has been overheated rhetoric from those who want to kill legal
services for the poor. I would just remind my colleagues that the
restrictions are in place from last year. Some of these anecdotal
references refer to horror stories in the past. There have been abuses;
we all know that. But the following restrictions are in place: No class
action suits by LSC, no lobbying, no legal assistance to illegal
aliens, no political activities, no prisoner litigation, no
redistricting representation, no representation of people evicted from
public housing due to drugs. That is all in the past. Those
restrictions are on LSC as a result of last year's bill.
Mr. Chairman, I plead with Members of this body, do not gut the words
etched on the Supreme Court building, ``Equal justice under law.''
Support basic fairness and equality under the law. Support the
Mollohan-Fox amendment to restore legal services funding. Let us do the
right thing.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have friends on both sides of this
argument. I understand there are merits on both sides of the argument.
But let me give you my humble opinion as a guy who used to practice law
in the barrio in San Diego about 5 blocks south of Chicano Park in half
of a barber shop.
There is merit to the argument that Legal Services did go far past
the bounds that we set for them when we first initiated this program.
We know that we had legal services to get Aunt Flossie's car out of
hock, to do domestic law, allow people to have access to court for
personal injury when they did not have the up front money that was
necessary if they went to a paid lawyer. But what some legal services
devolved into was a legal services operation that went for the sexier
lawsuits. They liked the class action suits. They like innovating, and
they liked lawsuits that drew headlines. And they liked to move away
from what I call the ham and eggs things.
I think we have to strike a balance. I think the money that we have
in the bill right now is a balance. It does balance the need to have
legal services for people who cannot afford them, but it also leaves a
little need there so the local bars will step forward and pick up the
slack.
One thing that I say as a lawyer who never got any Government money
was the fact that when you do have these Government programs, you do
have a lessening of the private bar's interest in protecting the poor
and in doing pro bono suits. You do have a reduction in that area. So
we have to maintain a balance.
I think the money that we have in the bill does maintain a balance,
and the reason that we have gotten away from class action suits and
gotten away from these abuses is because this Congress has monetarily
and in a policy sense constrained Legal Services. We have constrained
them from doing the class action suits.
I am sorry to see that, if it is true that some shell corporations
are being formed to allow them to continue to pursue a social policy, I
am sorry to see that because they are supposed to be doing ham and eggs
work for poor people. I like the balance. Let us stick with what we
have got.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
(Ms. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. This
amendment is a significant improvement from the base bill.
Since 1974, the Legal Services Corporation has provided poor families
access to our justice system, thus putting into practice the principle
of equal justice for all. The proposed fiscal year 1997 funding level
represents a 49-percent reduction from the current appropriation.
This is an unacceptable funding level, particularly given the fact
that last year's 30 percent funding reduction forced the Kansas City
Legal Aid to eliminate 10 percent of the staff. These reductions leave
80 workers to tackle approximately 22,000 cases a year. In addition,
legal aid attorneys are forced to turn away applicants desperately
seeking assistance. Further dramatic reductions in funding would make
it even more difficult for many communities, like Kansas City, to keep
their legal aid offices open.
I am dedicated to balancing the budget, but we must do so in a
responsible manner. Slashing legal services for poor families is not
responsible. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox
bipartisan amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore just a portion
of what is needed for the basic functions of the Legal Services
Corporation, and it ought to command the support of every Member of
this body.
The Constitution holds out the promise of equal justice under law to
every American. But that promise is made real only as our citizens have
effective access to the courts to enforce their rights. For the poor
these rights often exist only in theory because they cannot afford the
lawyers to get into court. Legal Services provides that legal
representation.
Access to the legal system is more than a matter of equal justice. It
is also a key ingredient in maintaining a civil society based on the
rule of law. If people are expected to respect the rule of law, they
must have some expectation of its protections, as well as of its
discipline. Legal Services plays an essential role in that.
Mr. Chairman, Legal Services work is accomplished by staff lawyers
who work for low pay, supported last year by 150,000 volunteer lawyers
providing pro bono services. I used to be one of those volunteers. I
can tell you, the staff lawyers can not possibly do anything more than
provide the basic representation that they are charged with under the
law as it now stands. There is simply no rational basis to assert that
additional pro bono work by the private bar can make up the difference
for Legal Services. That makes as much sense as suggesting we are going
to get volunteer doctors to make up for eliminating Medicaid. It will
not happen.
Cuts in legal services funding in this bill will hurt those who can
least afford it and betray America's promise of
[[Page H8181]]
equal justice. Support the Mollohan-Fox amendment. It is fundamental to
American justice.
This amendment to restore but a portion of the basic funding for the
Legal Services Corporation [LSC] should command the support of every
Member.
While I certainly support this amendment, I must say that it is only
a start. It will bring LSC funding to a level 10 percent below last
year's level, which itself took a 30 percent cut from 1995. We need to
do more, much more than is provided for in this amendment, to bring LSC
funding back to a level where the Nation's poor can have reasonable
access to the civil justice system.
As my colleagues know, LSC provides legal representation to our
poorest citizens. When LSC was established under President Richard
Nixon's leadership in 1974, it was intended to become a permanent,
vital part of the American justice system.
The Constitution holds out the promise of equal justice under law.
That promise is made real as American citizens have effective access to
the courts to enforce their rights. For the poor, these rights often
exist only in theory because they can't afford the lawyers necessary to
get their day in court. LSC provides that legal representation. If we
are going to ensure that the quality of American justice isn't
primarily a function of wealth, the work of LSC must continue.
Access to the legal system is more than a matter of equal justice. It
is an important factor in maintaining civil society based on the rule
of law. If people are expected to respect the rule of law, they must
have some expectation of its protection, as well as of its discipline.
Last year, LSC closed 1.7 million cases. About one-third or 558,000
of those involved family law, including representation of almost 60,000
individuals seeking protection from battering by their spouses. LSC
helped over 200,000 older Americans with legal problems involving their
health and income. It helped thousands of low-income military veterans
and family farmers, representing them before banks and government
bureaucracies that would otherwise have overwhelmed them.
Cases concerning families, housing, income, and consumer protection
alone account for over 80 percent of LSC's work. This bill would cut
LSC by almost half. It is not hard to figure who will pay the price--
women, children, and low-income older Americans, farmers, and veterans.
Mr. Chairman, LSC's work is accomplished by staff lawyers who are
willing to work for low pay, supported last year by almost 150,000
private attorneys who participated by providing pro bono representation
as volunteers. As a former volunteer attorney myself, I can tell you,
the lawyers I worked with were too busy trying to meet the basic legal
needs of their clients to engage in some of the activities that
detractors claim. And there's simply no rational basis to assert that
additional pro bono work by the private bar can replace Legal Services
lawyers. That makes as much sense as expecting volunteer work by
doctors to make up for ending Medicaid.
Mr. Chairman, the cuts in LSC funding in this bill will hurt those
who can least defend themselves and betray our Nation's promise of
equal protection under law for all Americans. This amendment is the
right thing to do; it is the least we can do.
I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. We had
an agreement worked out. Many of us thought this should have been
zeroed out immediately rather than phased out, as was the agreement
that was worked out. Now we have an amendment before us that will
approximately double the funding provided.
The fact of the matter is, we have got a budget to balance. It seems
like in this body there is no program that can be eliminated. Every
single thing has its adherents. I would submit if we ranked the things
this Federal Government funds, Legal Services would be at or near the
bottom just on the merits of the relative order of importance.
Yet here we go again, there is always some group of individuals
within this body that feels they have got to try and maintain another
one of these programs. This is what is sinking America, Mr. Chairman:
All these programs designed to help somebody and, in fact, they are
crushing everybody by destroying our economic growth.
We talk about helping those who need legal services. Where in the
Constitution in the powers given under article I to the Congress is
that one of our responsibilities?
We are a Nation made up of sovereign States. If these things are
important, let the States handle them. That, in fact, is what was the
practice until whenever Legal Services came into being, I think some
time in the 1970's.
I do not know if the Members are aware but there are over 900
organizations that provide pro bono services, lawyers that donate their
time, that do not get Legal Services Corporation funding. Why do we
have to have the Federal Government involved in everything?
The answer is simple. The reason a lot of Members want to keep this
is because it is an advocacy group for liberal causes, as we have heard
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton] allude to.
The fact of the matter is, we cannot afford it. We do not need it. It
should be terminated. Certainly this amendment should be rejected.
Let me share a couple of examples here, in terms of the ample
resources that are available to the poor in the event they need legal
help:
Chicago Volunteer Legal Services provides legal aid to the poor
without LSC funding by using seven staff attorneys and 1,500 pro bono
lawyers. The Indianapolis Legal Aid Society last year received all of
its $458,000 budget from private sources, primarily the United Way.
In Tampa, FL, the Courthouse Assistance Project, which receives no
Government support, assists 300 low income individuals a month right in
the county courthouse. Similar programs are being set up in 14 other
cities. In New York State every county has set up a community dispute
resolution center to handle legal disputes through mediation and
arbitration. Each center receives half of its budget from the State and
half from local governments and private groups.
In 1994, the center handled 25,000 cases at a cost of $68 per case.
The United Charities Legal Aid Bureau of Chicago handled 25,000
inquiries last year with a staff of only nine attorneys and a budget of
less than $2 million. Its cost per case ratio was $80 compared to $250
for the 79 staff Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, which receives
over 60 percent of its $10 million budget from the Legal Services
Corporation.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment we ought to reject. We ought to
maintain the agreement entered into. We ought to phase down this
funding as proposed in the bill, and we ought to let Americans have a
smaller and better and more efficient Federal Government.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the gentleman could tell
me, other than the hortatory language in a budget resolution, which
does not appropriate funds and which is not authorizing legislation,
what agreement is the gentleman talking about that we reached regarding
the eventual elimination of the Legal Services Corporation?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. This was an agreement amongst the Republicans with the
Republican leadership.
Mr. BERMAN. The appropriations process each year funds that Legal
Services Corporation, am I not correct?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. And I would
observe that we have been on track. In fact, the figure in this bill
reflects the agreement. Now it is being changed.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is
it the same agreement among Republicans that was going to eliminate the
Department of Commerce, eliminate cops on the beat, eliminate the
advanced technology program. Is that the agreement we are talking
about?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Different agreement but the same philosophy, the
philosophy that returns power to the people and cuts their taxes, not
bigger and more expensive government.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
{time} 1630
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
I rise in support of this amendment. I believe that the Federal
Government has a role in insuring access to the courts in our system.
In the first place,
[[Page H8182]]
litigation can occur over Federal rights. The Federal Government has
provided, through many types of legislation, rights for individuals.
Those rights sometimes can only be vindicated in court. Therefore,
there is specifically a Federal role in ensuring that people, poor
people, indigent people have an ability to go into Federal court and
exercise their rights.
Second of all on the same lines, the Federal Government has a role in
insuring that we have a democratic system, and a democratic system
means that we resolve our disputes in court and not on the streets.
I have heard three arguments basically against this amendment. The
first is that there is an agreement among Republicans to the funding
levels as proposed.
I am a Republican. I never reached any agreement with anybody. If
other Republicans did make such an agreement, and they have to honor
their agreement, then they should vote against this amendment. But I do
not think all of us Republicans were ever asked to reach this
agreement. I know I certainly was not.
Second of all, the issue is just made we have to balance our budget.
I agree we have to balance the budget. I agree that the Federal
Government should not have the sole responsibility for legal services.
But Legal Services has already been reduced in budget. About 2 years
ago the budget was, I believe, well over $400 million. The amendment
before us today asks for funding for next fiscal year of $250 million.
I think that that is a recognition that all programs have to make their
contribution toward reaching a balanced budget, and, further, this
amendment is funded by making other adjustments in the bill before us
so it does not cost any additional funds.
Finally, I want to address the fact that it has been brought to our
attention that a number of unpopular individuals have brought unpopular
lawsuits through the Legal Aid Society. Well, I can top those examples.
We use taxpayers' money to defend people accused of murder. We use
taxpayers' money to defend people accused of armed robbery and all the
horrendous crimes we can think of through the Federal Public Defender
Program. And we do so for the exact same philosophy, that people have a
right to present their case in court. And lawyers only represent
clients, they did not raise them, and they do not go home and live with
them usually.
The fact of the matter is the lawyer is providing a mechanism where
even the most unpopular individual can present their case in court and
have a judge and jury render a decision. It seems to be that is what
American justice is all about.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me.
I did take the time to meet with some of the Legal Services
Corporation representatives in my congressional district to discuss
this issue last year after we debated it at some length. I did hear
about some of the good things they do representing people who are being
unfairly evicted from their housing, helping out the poor. But I did
get them to acknowledge that there are Legal Services Corporation
lawyers in some localities, unfortunately it was not in mine, that
engage in what I would call public advocacy to basically thwart the
will of the people. And we have heard examples from the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton] and some of my other colleagues of some of the
horrendous cases where the people of the United States want welfare
reform, and Legal Services Corporation lawyers are fighting welfare
reform in some localities.
We heard about Megan's law that gives parents the ability to be
notified when sex offenders are moving into their neighborhood. We hear
about Legal Services Corporation attorneys advocating against this
legislation. I have in front of me a whole list after list of examples
of where Legal Services Corporation attorneys are engaging in left-wing
liberal advocacy and in many cases going exactly against the will of
the people.
I guess a great example here is we voted 432 to 0 requiring that
criminals give restitution to victims if they have the ability to do
so, and, lo and behold, what happens immediately.
Now what we are doing, I say to my colleagues, in this body, the
people in my district, the majority of the people in my district, have
trouble making ends meet. At the end of the month, when they have paid
the rent and they have paid the bill, they do not have much money left.
They do not like the amount of money that is coming out of their
paycheck with taxes. What we are doing is taking taxpayer dollars and
applying it to this sort of thing, and I think it is wrong.
Oppose this amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, we need to focus this debate on the people
who are involved. They include Zelma Brooks, A 65-year-old grandmother
who was only able to overturn an unfair eviction after 6 months of
diligent work by LSC. If this happened today Legal Services Corporation
would only be able to listen and offer advice.
As much as critics try to make this about the liberal activists who
support LSC, this is about Zelma Brooks and all of the people like her.
This Congress has placed handcuffs on an organization that has been
doing great work under already strained finances. Arguments about
deficiencies in LSC are nothing more than rhetoric and exaggerations
being used to mask the fact that we are trying to lock the doors of the
civil courtrooms to a class of people.
Anyone who wishes to destroy any organization can hold it up to the
microscope and exploit imperfections. However, no amount of partisan
attacks and criticism can mask the fact that millions of people who
would normally be without courtroom access have received legal
representation in gaining benefits which they were denied, overturning
illegal evictions, and separating from abusive spouses. Can we in good
conscience allow the poorest and most defenseless of our communities to
be left without any protection against civil injustice?
Emblazoned on the front of the Supreme Court are the words ``Equal
Justice Under Law.'' Nowhere does it say that Americans can only seek
redress of grievances if they have the personal resources to do it by
themselves. Let's not say that today.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], a very effective member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
I rise, too, in strong support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. I do
not know where the concept arises that, if we are to have equal justice
under the law and access to the courts for people who cannot afford
otherwise to hire an attorney, that we must agree on the legal theory
on which they bring their lawsuit. That to me seems to be contrary to
the theory of equal justice under the law.
The Legal Services Corporation has done so many things in a way that
is reflective of the innovative ideas of the new majority. They have
local control, they have volunteerism, they have public private
partnerships, they have decentralization with low administrative cost,
and they have limited budgets. It seems to me that after the cuts of
last year and after the restrictions that we have placed on the Legal
Services Corporation by some members who felt that some of their
activities were objectionable, the least we can do for the poorest of
our society is to give them an opportunity to have access.
I support and urge my colleagues to vote for the Mollohan-Fox
amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], chairman of the
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk today about the
benefits or lack of them in the Legal Services Corporation. I support
legal service agencies and was a leader for 16 years, so I believe that
we have to help the poor. But I am going to talk about where the money
is coming from.
The Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives in
reporting H.R. 3814, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997, proposed to
take $15 million from the fees which will be paid by
[[Page H8183]]
patent applicants in 1997 to fund other activities. This $15 million
comes directly from the pockets of America's innovators and will
directly reduce the services that they will receive from the Patent and
Trademark Office. This is an unconscionable tax on innovation, a tax on
American inventors for seeking to share with the American public the
results of their creativity.
This amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
Mollohan] proposes to take another $34 million from America's patent
applicants to fund the Legal Services Corporation. If my colleagues
believe in the Legal Services Corporation, take it from the taxpayers
and not one specific group of people who pay entirely for the support
of their own agency. This tax on innovation, this theft from American
inventors, must be rejected.
While the Nation's inventive community may disagree on some aspects
of patent legislation, there is no disagreement that this victimization
of our inventors must stop. We should not force our inventors to pay
more for a program out of their user fees than we refuse to fund with
taxpayer dollars.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to
the distinguished gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].
(Mr. LONGLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the debate this afternoon is not
necessarily about the Legal Services Corporation. It is about the
Federal obligation to provide legal assistance to those who need it.
And, yes, that is a Federal responsibility.
I have no love necessarily for the corporation per se. I think we
have made progress in the last year in terms of reforming it to get it
out of the advocacy business and into the business of effectively
representing the men and women of this country who cannot afford legal
services who need help. I do not think it is fair to say that the
private sector can pick up this burden. Lawyers in Maine are currently
devoting tens of thousands of hours on a pro bono basis, but they
cannot shoulder that burden by themselves.
I think it is a question of how we provide the resources. To the
extent I have any disappointment about this debate this afternoon, it
is that it obscures the central question. We cannot afford to stay in a
situation where we are either supporting legal services or eliminating
it. To me the question is how do we provide the resources. I question
whether the Legal Services Corporation is the most effective way of
doing it, but in the absence of any alternative such as block grants or
other methods that would provide greater local control and State
control to the provision of legal service on a more effective basis,
then I must side with the sponsors of this amendment.
The question is resources and many of the details. Right now the
question really is whether we are going to provide resources given the
cuts that we have made in the last year, and I think that we need to
provide flat funding for this important program.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
When the task came to me to try to fashion an authorization bill on
this very vital subject, I announced for the whole world to hear that I
am in favor of legal services for the poor, in favor of the delivery
system that works and in favor of a system that makes sure that the
needs are met of the poor, not the abstract needs that the Legal
Services Corporation itself had delved into over the years. And so we
devised a block grant.
If indeed this amendment that we are considering right now was one in
which we take $250 million and turn it over to the States in a block
grant system that we had devised in my committee, I would vote for it.
But what we are doing here is perpetuating the Legal Services
Corporation, which in my judgment is the cause, the root cause, of all
the anecdotes of abuse that we have heard on this floor here today. I
might say that the anecdotes which are derived as being mere anecdotes
are volumes now. Fifty witnesses had 50 anecdotes in 2 days of hearings
in my committee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings].
(Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
bipartisan amendment offered by my colleagues to increase funding for
the Legal Services Corporation.
Prior to my election to Congress, I practiced law for almost 20
years. It is through my experiences with the American legal system that
I feel confident and qualified to comment on this amendment.
As a lawyer, I represented all types of people in all kinds of
situations.
And there is one hard fact that I have witnessed and learned
throughout my years of practice--our system of justice belongs to the
wealthy and privileged. Rare is the day when indigents or poor citizens
receive equitable treatment in their representation.
I believe that ours is the best judicial process in the world. But
everyday across this country, citizens with meager resources have
little or no voice in the process.
Last year's bill quieted the voices of the needy, this year's bill
silences those voices. As a result of the fiscal year 1996 cut,
Maryland's Legal Aid Bureau lost $1.4 million this year. If the House
adopts the fiscal year 1997 levels, Maryland will lose $1.5 million
more, which leaves thousands of Maryland residents without adequate
legal representation.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of
this amendment. The funding we will provide today ensures that our
poorest citizens will have equal justice under law.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, each morning Members of this House with
hand over heart turn to this flag and give a pledge: One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In a few moments with our votes we will decide whether justice for
all is simply words to be recited, an ideal worth defending. I believe
in the Pledge of Allegiance, I believe it is worth reciting, and I
believe it is worth defending.
Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
{time} 1645
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I support the Fox-Mollohan amendment, this bipartisan amendment.
I voted for the Commerce-Justice-State bill last year, reducing
support for the Legal Services Corporation from $400 million to $278
million. I never in my wildest imagination thought I would be voting to
reduce it even further, yet even with this amendment we are seeking to
restore funds to $250 million. I hope and pray that this Congress seeks
to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I believe American citizens should have access to the
courts, no matter how much money they make. I think a mother should be
able to seek child support in the courts, if necessary, regardless of
income. I think a tenant should be able to sue for decent housing,
regardless of income. I know that we got rid of what all of us wanted
to get rid of, or most of us, the class-action suits funded by the
taxpayers against their own governments. I can understand that issue,
but we dealt with that issue last year.
What I cannot understand is why we blame Legal Services for seeking
to enforce the laws we pass and the Constitution of the United States
we would die defending. If we do not like the end result of the court
decisions, then maybe we have to look at the laws we pass.
What Legal Services attempts to do is make sure that all citizens,
the poorest, in fact, have the same right to defend themselves in
court. I hope and pray, I truly pray, that we have the good sense to
pass this amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H8184]]
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox
amendment and in opposition to the bill's dramatic cuts to Legal
Services.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, first, I think it is fair to say this fight
is not about money. It is about implementing an effort by some Members
of the other party to eliminate the Legal Services program.
My friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] says ``If
there were $250 million in a block grant, I would support it.'' We have
been waiting for a year and 3 months for the authorization bill which
turned this program into a block grant program to come to the floor. It
is not us, it is not the supporters of this amendment who have fought
that. It is the leadership who has kept that from coming to the floor.
We talk about class warfare. Let me suggest, I understand why some
apartment owners, some growers, some government officials do not want
Legal Services programs, because they do not want to afford the rights
that the law gives. The right move is not to eliminate the poor's
access to lawyers. The right way to do it is to change the laws that we
do not like that accords substantive rights to people. Surely once
those rights are accorded, we would agree that everyone should have
access to them.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment,
and to express my dismay with the fax that I received from the
Christian Coalition urging that I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am a Christian and I support this amendment, because
following the Christian teachings that I was taught, I believe that
helping the poor is a Christian thing to do. Helping the poor access
the same legal system to which people with money can access at will is,
I believe, a very Christian thing to do.
I am dismayed that the Christian Coalition intimates that they speak
for Christians. Clearly they do not speak for the poor or the
charitable, for if they did, they would not urge us to kill this
amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox
amendment. I know that Legal Services work. My office and I work with
people every day in helping poor people, especially women and children.
I ask my colleagues, if you cut Legal Services funding again, where
will a poor woman in my district and in many of your districts go for
help when her husband is abusing her? Where will a poor family go when
they are illegally tossed out of their home? Where will the disabled
people go when their Social Security or SSI benefits are improperly
denied?
The answer is nowhere. You are cutting one more strand out from under
the safety net for the people of this Nation. This is not the time to
cut legal aid for the most vulnerable people in America.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and restore funding to
this very important program.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment
to restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
I helped found the Piedmont Legal Services office in my home County
of York in South Carolina. I did so because I discovered early in my
private practice that pro bono work wasn't enough to meet the needs of
the poor. I tried to do a lot of this work myself, but I quickly
reached my limit. Legal services are necessary for any but the smallest
fraction of poor people to have access to legal help.
The cut to legal services proposed in the bill before us is designed
to destroy LSC. Last year, Congress cut the program by over 30 percent
and this bill calls for another 50 percent cut this year. These cuts
clearly are on a path to zero, and no one should kid themselves that
today's vote is about anything other than survival of the program. With
the meager funding allowed in this bill, only about 10 percent of the
eligible poor in South Carolina will be able to obtain legal services.
The bar in South Carolina has a successful pro bono program which
last year drew over 3,000 volunteers who closed almost 1,000 cases. But
the 44 Legal Services attorneys in South Carolina closed over 16,000
cases. And LSC funding of other programs helped close another 2,000
cases for a total of 18,000. Undoubtedly a lot of pro bono work goes
unreported, but it is clear that the private bar cannot make up for
LSC.
If we lose this fight today, and let Legal Services be reduced to
irrelevance, the need will not go away. Within several years, I am
convinced we will see our mistake, but it will take another generation
to re-establish 343 local legal aid programs; to restaff their offices;
to rebuild the resource centers; and to do something right for poor
people and our legal system that we should never have quit doing in the
first place.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. Mr.
Chairman, every day we do indeed pledge allegiance to the flag, which
ends ``with liberty and justice for all.'' Every American should have
access to our judicial system, and none can have justice without that
access. For millions of low-income Americans, the only chance for
access to justice is through the Legal Services Corporation. Many
Americans already assume and believe that only the rich benefit from
our legal system.
Mr. Chairman, this cut makes that assumption and that belief a
reality. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. The numbers are
pretty simple. In fiscal year 1995 there was $400 for the Legal
Services Corporation. In fiscal year 1996 we properly, I think, cut it
to $278 million, and we added restrictions on what they could do. If
the bill passes as it is today, it would be $141 million, a 65-percent
reduction from fiscal year 1995. With the amendment, it is still a
reduction to $250 million or a 37\1/2\-percent reduction from fiscal
year 1995.
We should support this amendment. We do need Legal Services for the
poor. They simply cannot afford it otherwise. I urge everyone to
support the amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
(Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my distinguished colleague and
friend, the gentleman from California, it is not about money. I also do
not think it is about that beautiful last line in the Pledge of
Allegiance, liberty and justice for all.
There are some of us that can make a compelling case that not only
has Legal Services been arrogant and corrupt and done things to
exacerbate illegal immigration and has actually hurt the poor by not
letting people evict drug dealers from public housing, but past
administrations have attempted without success to place any
restrictions on LSC.
Their current President, Alexander Forger, has been particularly
arrogant about his intention to resist any future congressional
limitations. At a board meeting on April 11, 1995, he says this
proudly; he said, ``There is a legal case, if we choose to assert it,
that the committee,'' in this case a House and Senate committee, ``does
not have any authority to make the decision over what cases we take.''
Mr. Chairman, under the pretense of pro- viding the impoverished with
access to the legal system, the Legal Services Corporation
[[Page H8185]]
has cost American taxpayers untold billions of dollars in politically
motivated litigation costs--some say nearly $2 trillion! Many of these
lawsuits are legal sleights of hand designed to undermine existing laws
that limit welfare and other entitlements as well as prevent
restrictions on LSC activities.
I will not go into the long list of cases that demonstrate the
flagrant abuses of this agency. But I will tell you that in way too
many cases, the LSC has an appalling and inexcusable record of all too
often taking money from law-abiding, hard-working taxpayers and then
giving it to the likes of convicted felons, delinquent fathers, illegal
aliens, and even to drug dealers. And they do this without any
accountability to the taxpayers who subsidize their outrageous
behavior.
Here are just a few examples:
First, the LSC engages in litigation that actually harms the poor--
such as preventing the eviction of drug dealers from public housing!
Second, the LSC promotes illegal immigration by suing for public
benefits to illegal aliens and litigating on behalf of criminal aliens
the Federal Government wants to deport.
Third, the LSC is too often anti-family. The program's hostility
toward even the most basic family values is most evident in grantees'
aggressive advocacy of abortion, support for homosexual rights,
opposition to parental authority and a general disdain for the
traditional family unit.
Fourth, LSC grantees spend significant resources on behalf of
criminals in prison. In addition to suing prisons for disciplining
criminals guilty of planning riots, escapes and other offenses, legal
services lawyers have also engaged in extensive litigation demanding
special and unreasonable privileges for convicts such as a
constitutional right to, of all things, hot pots.
Mr. Chairman, Congress and past administrations have already
attempted without success to place restrictions on LSC activities and
behavior. Because money is fungible in the hands of private groups that
have more than one funding source, LSC and its grantees have cleverly
avoided these restrictions or any other attempt to make them
accountable to the taxpayers that finance their activities. The LSC's
current president, Alexander Forger, is particularly arrogant about his
intention to resist future congressional limitations. At a LSC board
meeting on April 11, 1995, in response to questions about the ability
of House and Senate conferees to impose certain limitations on
allocations of LSC funds, Forger said, ``There is a legal case--if we
chose to assert it--that the Committee does not have the authority to
make that decision.''
Mr. Chairman, I agree with those of my colleagues who want to ensure
that the impoverished have access to the legal system. You will be
hard-pressed to find a member of this Congress who feels otherwise. But
while supporters of the LSC contend that the agency is the only source
of legal services for the indigent, many people are not aware that
sufficient private alternatives already exist to provide more effective
legal assistance to the poor, such as pro bono work and non-LSC service
providers. In fact, lawyers have a long and distinguished history of
providing free legal services to the poor. The American Bar
Association's 1993-94 directory of pro bono legal services listed over
900 programs! Of course, this does not include the hundreds of
thousands of lawyers who prefer to do pro bono work on an individual
basis. The ABA should recognize and encourage more of this type of
charity work.
But that's not all. Since 1984, the ABA has issued a directory of
literally hundreds upon hundreds of private bar involvement programs,
including all legal service programs involving private attorneys,
reduced-fee programs, judicare programs--in which private attorneys who
take cases for the poor are reimbursed by the Government according to a
set schedule of fees--private attorney referral programs, and programs
in which attorneys do a specified amount of legal work for the poor
under Government contract. LSC grantees did not create and do not
direct the majority of these programs.
Although a complete inventory of all legal resources available to the
needy does not exist, available information shows that ample resources
are indeed available for the poor to turn to for legal help. Here are
some specific examples:
First, Chicago Volunteer Legal Services provides legal aid to the
poor without LSC funding by using seven staff attorneys and 1,500 pro
bono lawyers.
Second, the Indianapolis Legal Aid Society last year received all of
its $458,000 budget from private sources, primarily the United Way.
Third, in Tampa, FL, the courthouse assistance project, which
receives no Government support, assists 300 low-income individuals a
month right in the county courthouse. Similar programs are being set up
in 14 other cities.
Fourth, in New York State, every county has set up a community
dispute resolution center to handle legal disputes through mediation
and arbitration. Each center receives half of its budget from the State
and half from local governments and private groups. In 1994, the center
handled 25,000 cases at a cost of $68 per case.
Fifth, the United Charities Legal Aid Bureau of Chicago handled
25,000 inquiries last year with a staff of only nine attorneys and a
budget of less than $2 million. Its cost-per-case ratio is $80,
compared to $250 for the 79-staff Legal Assistance Foundation of
Chicago, which receives over 60 percent of its $10 million budget from
the LSC.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government can no longer afford to
maintain this agency, especially when so many resources already exist
for the poor to turn to for legal aid when they need it. It's time to
defund the left, to defund the failed Legal Services Corporation. In
the words of a former hero President, ``If not us, who? If not now,
when?''
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I take that quote at face value, but as a matter of
fact, would the gentleman agree that those restrictions are in place
and that they have been followed? I have not heard anybody say those
restrictions to be put on Legal Services have in any way been violated.
Would the gentleman agree with that?
Mr. DORNAN. I would say when they are getting the cuts we are giving
them, they would be smart to live up to them.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. They have.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to reinvent the wheel here.
I think we have to have a whole new structure to help the poor so those
without the benefit of good legal counsel can get it. But I think Legal
Services Corporation is part of defunding the left that has almost
bankrupted this country.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply opposed to the enormous funding cut this
bill contains for the Legal Services Corporation, and I rise in strong
support of this amendment to restore funding to Legal Services.
In 1989, the late Senator Ed Muskie chaired the Maine Commission on
Legal Needs. In his preface to the Commission's report Senator Muskie
wrote, ``Assurances of equal justice, appear to the poor, to be meant
for others. Their experience in the pursuit of justice has been
frustration, loss of dignity, and all too often denial. Understandably,
their faith in our legal system has been shaken. The problem carries
implications for all in our society. It concerns the most basic
principles of our social and legal order.''
Mr. Chairman, this effort to eviscerate the Legal Services
Corporation takes us a giant leap backward in our efforts to make
``equal justice under the law'' a reality for all Americans. Federal
funds are needed to ensure that at least a minimum level of legal
assistance is available to every American, regardless of their income.
In my State, Pine Tree Legal Service is the only Legal Services
Corporation grantee. Pine Tree Legal provides outstanding legal support
to Maine's poorest citizens. More than 230,000 Mainers--roughly 20
percent of the State's population--have incomes close to the Federal
poverty guidelines. They cannot afford to retain a lawyer when they
have a civil legal problem. They rely on Pine Tree Legal for help.
In 1994, Pine Tree helped more than 15,000 individuals in more than
380 Maine communities to address their civil legal problems. Because of
Pine Tree's effective advocacy, families were reunited or able to
remain together; women obtained protection from abuse on behalf of
their children and themselves, and individuals with disabilities were
given dignity and respect. Children were able to stay in school, and
wage earners who lost their jobs were able to continue to support their
families while they looked for new work.
The people who are represented by Pine Tree Legal generally have no
[[Page H8186]]
where else to turn. Although the vast majority of the private bar in
Maine does pro bono work, they simply cannot meet the entire demand.
Pine Tree Legal complements the efforts of the private bar.
Unfortunately, due to the extraordinary cuts to the Legal Services
Corporation previously adopted by this Congress, Pine Tree Legal's
staffing currently stands at its lowest level since 1969. The need for
services has not declined, however, and evidence indicates that for
every person Pine Tree is able to help, five are not served.
The need for public funding of basic legal services was identified by
the Nixon administration when it established the Legal Services
Corporation. In the past 20 years, nothing has intervened to make that
need less compelling. We must ask ourselves the fundamental question:
``Can there be justice for any of us if there is not justice for all?''
I believe the answer is no, and I urge my colleagues to support this
effort to restore critical funds to the Legal Services Corporation.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1
additional minute in this debate, and that the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Taylor] be likewise given 1 additional minute. The reason
I want it is I have a colloquy that I would like to enter into which
will take about 1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of very excited
comments today about misbehavior and horrible things that are happening
with the representation of bad people across the country by legal aid
societies. However, I think it is important to note that there are
restrictions on the use of Federal funds that are made available. This
amendment has no effect on them.
Legal aid societies who take Federal funds cannot accept juvenile or
criminal law cases. They cannot do legislative or political advocacy.
They cannot do lobbying. They cannot do class actions. There is no
evidence that I have seen as a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, and we held hearings, that indicates that any of that is
happening.
The gentleman from Indiana said earlier there are shell organizations
that have been created, and that there is something illegal or wrong
about this. I am sure he spoke sincerely, but I am from Santa Clara
County. He did mention the Santa Clara County situation, and I am
personally familiar with it. His comments were not accurate.
He mentioned a comment from a man who said, ``That is why we are
lawyers, not social workers.'' That person is not a he, it is a she.
Her name is Liz Shivell, and she practices law in San Jose. I also have
copies here, and I would be happy to share them with Members, of the
articles of incorporation of the Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara
County and the Community Legal Services Corp. They are two separate
corporations. I have copies of the boards of directors of the Community
Legal Services, which is the Legal Services Corp. grantee, and the
Legal Aid Society, which is a private corporation that receives not one
penny of Legal Services Corp. funding.
Mr. Chairman, I also have a copy of the brochure from the LSC-funded
organization that says they cannot accept the following cases, and it
lists all the prohibitions that this Congress has placed on legal aid
societies.
{time} 1700
There was some controversy in Santa Clara County when the
restrictions came down because many lawyers felt that they could not
ethically practice under the restrictions that Congress had imposed. So
leaders in the local legal community formed a separate corporation that
does the work allowed under the Federal rules, and the Legal Aid
Society now does whatever it wants to do as lawyers, as separately
funded lawyers.
I helped raise money for the Legal Aid Society which receives no
Legal Services money, along with our district attorney who is a tough
prosecutor and, I would add, also a Republican. However, he believes,
our prosecutor does, as do I, that we need to be able to do such things
as provide restraining orders to victims of domestic violence without
asking for their financial statements. That is one of the many reasons
why I support the Mollohan amendment, and I am glad to be able to offer
facts in support of it.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I think it has been very clear
from the discussion this afternoon that Legal Services Corporation
deserves the increase that is in the Mollohan-Fox amendment. We have
seen the appropriate restrictions on the use of funds by LSC to only
those legal cases for the poor. We also know that it is revenue
neutral. There is no further tax increase here. There is an offset,
which is appropriate.
Finally we have already seen the last 2 years such a downsizing cut
that we cannot survive any further cut and still represent those in our
society who need the assistance the most legally. I would ask my
colleagues to please support this amendment and do right by all
Americans.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Eshoo].
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Mollohan] for the work that he has done, as well as the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], on this amendment. I share my colleagues'
desire to adequately fund the Legal Services Corp.
However, as a member of the Committee on Commerce that has
jurisdiction over the Securities and Exchange Commission and our
Nation's securities markets, I believe it is also essential to maintain
adequate oversight over the life savings of millions of Americans. I
see that the amendment will reallocate funds from a variety of
agencies, including the SEC which performs that oversight function and
I believe does it very well.
Is it the gentleman's intention that carryover funds received by the
SEC be available to it to compensate for the reduction in its budget
called for in your amendment?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am pleased to assure the gentlewoman that the answer
is yes.
Ms. ESHOO. I am pleased about the assurance. I support the amendment,
and I thank the gentleman from West Virginia. I think this is an
important issue to have a part of the record.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] has 2
minutes remaining and the right to close.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make the point that
the authorizing committee authorized $250 million for this program.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, a
former chairman of the Legal Services Corporation several years ago,
seeing the multitude of abuses in the big government Legal Services
Corporation, tried to reform it. He was sued with taxpayers' money by
the Legal Services Corporation and never got through any of those
reforms. Today he stands as a strong opponent to the big government
Legal Services Corporation that the gentleman wants funded for $250
million.
I would say most of the people on this side of the aisle who have
spoken to increase the funding amount to $250 million voted for the
budget amendment that actually would hold it at $95 million, while we
are talking about $141 million today. I would say also to the question,
they will go where they go now, which is the great majority of legal
services in this country is provided by non-Federal Government
programs, the over 900 programs that are out there that are private
programs, the millions of dollars that fund other non-Federal funded
programs and pro bono programs.
[[Page H8187]]
The myth is these folks think legal services will come to a halt if
we do not keep the Federal Government, that is, the big government that
is hurting the poor more than it is helping, involved. That just is not
true. We will continue to have legal services programs. In fact, the 82
percent increase that we have shown in nonlegal service funds, Federal
big government funds, and the 21 percent in IOLTA funds will continue
to increase, so we shall continue to have good programs for the poor,
but without the big government national meddling that has embarrassed
and in fact turned much of this Nation against Legal Services because
of hat mismanagement.
The gentleman also suggests taking $57 million from our Federal
Prison Program and our courts. That will keep more violent criminals on
the street. So while he is working for a national program, a big
government program, we in fact will be hurting the justice system of
this country. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Mollohan amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am in support of the Mollohan
amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. We
live in a litigious society, and all people may need legal counsel.
Legal counsel is not a luxury to be available to only a portion of
society, it is a necessity for all.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not provided
adequate funding to the Legal Services Corporation, and I applaud Mr.
Mollohan for bringing this amendment forward to protect the least
fortunate among us.
This amendment addresses an issue of fairness. It is not fair to
allow people of means to have counsel and not provide it to the poor,
simply because they lack the means.
We have experienced other instances of unfair treatment of people in
the history of our Nation and it would be wrong to go down that path
again here.
I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment to increase
funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $109 million.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment to restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation [LSC]
under these Commerce, Justice, State fiscal year 1997 appropriations,
H.R. 3814.
The Dole-Gingrich Republicans' proposed funding to the LSC, which
provides legal services to low-income families and individuals, is yet
another demonstration that they are out of touch with the American
people. If they think by some wildly distorted imagination that they
are, they are dreaming; but their dream is a nightmare to many
Americans. Dole-Gingrich Republicans and their fat-cat supporters don't
benefit from the Legal Services Corporation, so it's not surprising
that they have targeted the LSC as a prime agency to starve to death by
severely cutting off its funding. Since their fat-cat supporters have
incomes that make them ineligible for the free or reduced-fee legal
services, that could be one explanation for why this bill guts the LSC
funding.
The original bill proposes funding which is $137 million--49
percent--less than the current appropriation for LSC and $199 million
less than the President's request. Such drastically reduced funding as
well as Republican mandated policy restrictions on the use of LSC
funds, tie the hands of this valuable public service program. For
example, under the Republican plan, slum landlords will have fewer
effective opponents to object to being victimized; worse still, victims
of domestic violence--usually women--will be denied their best and
often only resource to escape an abusing partner. Family law, which
includes the representation of victims of domestic violence, is the
single largest category of cases handled by the 278 local legal
services programs across the Nation. We need to be reminded that 1 out
of every 3 of the 1.7 million cases that legal services programs handle
each year concerns family law.
In 1995, legal services programs handled over 59,000 cases in which
clients sought legal protection from abusive spouses, representation in
their child custody proceedings to assure fairness in all matters
including child support and enforcement provisions, assistance in
locating services and funding for emergency and permanent housing or
other benefits enabling them and their children to escape violent
situations. Over 9,300 cases involved neglected, abused and dependent
juveniles.
I am especially pleased that in Chicago an innovative program
targeted at domestic violence has been developed by local legal
services programs as part of the National Legal Services Corps, one of
the first national initiatives funded through the AmericCorps national
service effort.
Since its creation in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation has come
to represent a chance, not a guarantee, but just a chance to receive
fairness in our society and from our judicial system. Unfortunately,
that change is not even a dream without adequate funding. In creating
the LSC, the Congress determined that the Federal Government had an
important interest in ensuring all persons have access to their system
of justice in America. The concept of equal justice is fundamental to
our system of government, economy, personal relations and just plain
personal security and peace of mind. Without sufficient funding, legal
equality will be a dream of the past. Once again, only the rich and the
powerful will have access to the legal system and the poor, weak,
vulnerable, and disenfranchised will slip down another rung on the
cultural, economic, and justice ladder of individual liberties.
Many of my constituents rely on the LSC for a chance at fair
treatment in the judicial system, and the high-priced private lawyers
support the LSC because it means that they don't have to feel as guilty
about charging their high hourly rates. While many lawyers in private
practice do provide their legal services on a pro bono basis, but not
nearly enough to provide the amount of services that are needed.
In many LSC programs, the core Federal funding provides the structure
for client intake and screening referral of cases, handling emergency
matters, training of pro bono lawyers, and handling of cases when no
private lawyers can do so. LSC leverages and facilitates the
utilization and maximization of private resources, both in-kind, pro
bono services and private funding. With only 3 percent of its budget
spent on administration, and with its unique ability to leverage
private resources, the LSC deserves more, not fewer, resources. It is a
well-run corporation that is cost effective and programmatically
extraordinarily successful.
Increased funding for LSC is supported by many notable organizations.
Two stellar examples are the American Bar Association [ABA] and the
American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU]. The ABA has said that without
the core Federal resources to train lawyers and put them in touch with
needy clients, the members of the ABA couldn't continue to provide the
level or quality of pro bono services that they do. The ABA credits
those among the reasons for the ABA supporting the creation of the LSC
over three decades ago. The ACLU has long maintained that the promise
of equal protection under the law cannot be fully realized without a
federally funded legal services program, and strenuously oppose the
legislative restrictions sought under this appropriations bill, which
would create categories of speech and litigation that unfairly
discriminate against LSC employees as well as their clients.
For these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment to adequately fund the Legal Services Corporation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan amendment to
restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation.
Among its services, the LSC provides crucial legal assistance for
victims of domestic violence. Over 1 million women a year are victims
of violence by husbands or boyfriends. Domestic violence is a problem
at all income levels, and legal services clinics are often the only
means by which low-income women can legally protect themselves from
their batteries.
Legal Services assist victims of domestic violence in a variety of
ways, including obtaining protection orders, child support, child
custody, divorces from abusive spouses, and emergency housing.
San Fernando Valley Legal Services estimates that, as a result of
reduction in staff because of these cuts, at least 1,000 victims of
domestic violence in that area alone will be denied assistance in
obtaining emergency temporary restraining orders.
This Congress has shown a strong bipartisan commitment to important
implications for the future. I urge you to support the Mollohan-Fox
amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation.
Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, I rise to express my strong support for
restoration of funding for the Legal Services Program.
As Americans, we should strive to make the words ``equal justice
under the law'' not just a concept, but a reality.
Unfortunately, Americans who lack financial resources do not have
equal footing in our system of justice. All over the country, thousands
of people seeking legal help are being turned away because legal
service programs have been forced to cut staff and to reduce the
services they are able to offer.
Many of those served are abused women and their children who turn to
the courts for protection. As we continue the national dialog on family
values, shouldn't we be helping these families who have no where else
to turn?
Legal services programs are prohibited from engaging in legislative
or administrative advocacy, thus addressing concerns raised by some
Members of Congress.
We are all aware of the fiscal constraints under which Congress is
operating, but should
[[Page H8188]]
we put a price on the American principle of equal justice? Let me point
out that in this comprehensive Commerce, State, Justice appropriations
bill, funding for legal services represents less than one-half of 1
percent of the $29.5 billion in the Commerce, State, Justice.
I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring funds for the Legal
Services Corporation.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, today this House will consider
legislation that represents another attack on services that directly
affect the poor and vulnerable members of our society. The Committee-
Justice-State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 cuts funding for
the Legal Services, Corporation by nearly 50 percent. This is the
lowest funding level in the history of the program--a program that
works to protect the legal rights of citizens who otherwise could not
afford legal assistance. The drastic cut in the Legal Services
Corporation included in this appropriations bill curtails a much-needed
program and threatens the legal rights of every poor or near-poor
person in this country. I urge my colleagues not to abandon critical
legal recourse for the poor and to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment
which will restore $109 million to the LSC to ensure that legal help is
available to those who need it the most.
The Legal Services Corporation is a good example of a Federal program
that is effectively being administered at the local level. The
leadership of this House claims to want to expand the role of State and
local authority while shrinking the size of the Federal Government. The
Legal Services Corporation is a prime example of how local control of a
federal program is working. The creators of the LSC recognized that
decisions about how legal services should be allocated are best made
not by officials in Washington, but at a local level, by the people who
understand the problems that face their communities.
The Legal Services Corporation, begun in 1974 and supported by
President Nixon, has had bi-partisan support and has served millions of
people since its inception. Today, the LSC provides funds to operate
programs in approximately 1,100 communities nationwide. Together, these
offices provide services to every county in the Nation. LSC programs
provide services to more than a million clients per year, benefitting
approximately 5 million individuals, the majority of them children
living in poverty. Family law makes up one-third of all of the cases
handled by LSC programs each year. In 1995, legal services programs
handled over 9,300 cases involving abused and neglected children.
Today the Legal Services Corporation also plays an important role in
providing legal representation for victims of domestic violence. Legal
service programs have been successful in helping victims of domestic
violence protect themselves by obtaining orders of protection and
granting divorces. Legal service attorneys also work to retain child
support from absent parents. By providing quality legal services to the
poor, the Legal Services Corporation assures that no woman is condemned
to a violent and dangerous marriage because she cannot afford a lawyer.
I cannot stand by quietly and watch this body endanger women and
children by limiting their access to our legal system.
Studies have shown that most poor people do not currently receive
proper legal advice when confronted with legal problems. The Legal
Services Corporation helps remedy this shameful inequity. Clearly, the
Legal Services Corporation needs to be expanded, not scaled down on a
path toward elimination as under this bill. Again, I urge my colleagues
to oppose cuts in legal services and to support the Mollohan-Fox
amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the proposed
irresponsible cuts to the Legal Services Corporation.
The Legal Services Corporation acts as a founding principle of this
country--equal justice under law--by supplying legal representation to
those who would not otherwise be able to afford it.
Those affected by the loss of legal services are the same people the
Contract With America has made a career of attacking: seniors, women,
children, and low-income Americans.
This bill renders the Legal Services Corporation ineffective because
it so strictly limits what they can do.
It cuts their funding and prohibits their ability to bring class
action suits.
This is just another way for the Republican majority to
systematically disinvest in the poor.
Mr. Chairman, we should fully fund the Legal Services Corporation.
If we don't make equal justice under the law a reality for all
Americans, who will?
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by Representatives Mollohan and Fox. The reduction in funding
for the Legal Services Corporation [LSC] included in H.R. 3814 is an
affront to one of this Nation's most sacred promises to its people--the
promise of equal justice under law.
It is also a very unfortunate continuation of the assault on the
Nation's have nots that we have witnessed over the past 2 years. It is
essential that the 50-percent cut in funding to the LSC be restored to
ensure that poor Americans have some reasonable chance of access to the
legal system enjoyed by the majority of Americans.
LSC has done an exemplary job for over 30 years of providing access
to the legal system for lower income Americans. It has done so in a
manner which reflects many of the guiding principles of Government
reinvention to which the majority adheres: local control, volunteerism,
public-private partnerships, and decentralization with low
administrative costs and limited bureaucracy.
Yet, once again, we are forced to acquiesce to opponents of LSC who
use isolated and anecdotal claims to insist that the Corporation's main
activity has been to pursue a political and social agenda. It was not
enough to implement broad restrictions on grantee activities, and
reduce funding for LSC programs by over 30 percent, as we did the last
appropriations bill. Today, the legislation before us includes a
draconian 50-percent reduction in LSC funding from fiscal year 1996
which will devastate the access of poor Americans to adequate legal
representation.
In the face of new political realities, legal services advocates have
been willing to bend over backwards to accept far reaching restrictions
on attorney activities to ensure the continued existence of a viable
core program. Efforts to comply with restrictions and cope with funding
reductions have apparently done little to appease the agency's critics.
It appears that it was never the Corporation's involvement in specific
kinds of cases that so infuriated opponents--it was just the mere
existence of any Federal effort to facilitate access to legal services
for the poor.
Make no mistake--the $141 million funding level provided in this bill
will have severe consequences for access to the legal system for lower
income Americans. Neither State and local governments nor the private
bar can be expected to pick up the caseload of the LSC Program. It is
completely unrealistic to assume that already hard pressed State and
local governments will shift funds to legal aid programs, particularly
as we in Washington continue to shift other competing responsibilities
back to the States.
Likewise, it is estimated that even if the present level of pro bono
services were doubled or tripled, only a fraction of the services now
provided by legal services attorneys would be retained. Indeed, the LSC
now leverages greater utilization of private resources, in addition to
providing critical training and support for pro bono programs.
We all support increased activity on the part of the private bar to
meet the legal needs of the poor. But saying it should be so, does not
make it so.
In my own State of California, the impacts of further cuts in the LSC
budget will devastate LSC-funded programs which account for
approximately 45 percent of the funds available for civil legal
services to the poor. In all parts of the State, the Corporation's
programs provide the majority of legal services to low-income
Californians.
In 1995, 14 California pro bono programs were LSC subgrantees in
1995. If grants are cut by the amount proposed in this legislation,
almost $2 million in funds which support private attorney involvement
will be lost in California alone.
I urge my colleagues to take a careful look at what we have already
done to the Legal Services Corporation. We have already cut funding to
the LSC by over 30 percent. We have already enacted restrictions to
forbid LSC involvement in class action suits, welfare reform, prisoner
representation, and a host of other activities which some Members found
objectionable.
If we now accept the $141 million funding level in this bill, we
drastically erode the core mission of the LSC which I believe the
majority of House Members support: providing access to legal assistance
for low-income Americans who may be the victims of domestic violence;
who face landlord-tenant disputes; who are wrongfully denied certain
benefits; or who are the victims of consumer fraud without the means to
seek legal recourse that most of us take for granted. These are the
core activities of the Legal Services Corporation that demand our
continued support.
I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment. Funding
the Legal Services Corporation at $250 million is the very least we can
do to ensure some continued access to legal representation for the
poor.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment and in support of legal services for all Americans.
Regardless of party or ideology, we can all agree that legal services
are beyond the grasp of many hardworking Americans, particularly those
struggling to provide their families with the very basic necessities of
life. Without the Legal Services Corporation, the very poor in this
Nation will have nowhere to go when that
[[Page H8189]]
eviction notice arrives, or an abusive husband threatens a wife's life.
This bill represents a 33-percent reduction, which is above and
beyond the 50-percent reduction the LSC absorbed last year.
We need to think of legal services in terms of the people who
benefit. In my district, 1,800 people were served by community legal
service groups last year. Most cases dealt with domestic abuse,
evictions, other housing issues, and assistance for those with
disabilities.
These are bread-and-butter services--not high-profile class-action
suits. In fact, last year's bill fully addressed the criticisms of the
Legal Services Corporation, focusing the program on what matters most--
basic legal protection for the poor.
Let's not punish people twice; I urge my colleagues to support legal
services and support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 179, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 341]
AYES--247
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--179
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Forbes
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Quillen
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--7
Collins (IL)
Fazio
Lincoln
Matsui
McDade
Peterson (FL)
Young (FL)
{time} 1724
Mr. McINTOSH and Mr. CALLAHAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Radiation Exposure Compensation
administrative expenses
For necessary administrative expenses in accordance with
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, $2,000,000.
payment to radiation exposure compensation trust fund
For payments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
Fund, $13,736,000, not to be available for obligation until
September 30, 1997.
Interagency Law Enforcement
interagency crime and drug enforcement
For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation,
and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime
drug trafficking not otherwise provided for, to include
intergovernmental agreements with State and local law
enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug
trafficking, $372,017,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That any amounts
obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used
under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed
from this appropriation: Provided further, That any
unobligated balances remaining available at the end of the
fiscal year shall revert to the Attorney General for
reallocation among participating organizations in succeeding
fiscal years, subject to the reprogramming procedures
described in section 605 of this Act.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution
of crimes against the United States, including purchase for
police-type use of not to exceed 2,706 passenger motor
vehicles, of which 1,945 will be for replacement only,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor
vehicles, acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under
the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the
certificate of, the Attorney General; $2,528,706,000, of
which not to exceed $50,000,000 for automated data processing
and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment
and $1,000,000 for undercover operations shall remain
available until September 30, 1998; of which not less than
$117,081,000 shall be for counterterrorism investigations,
foreign counterintelligence, and other activities related to
our national security; of which not to exceed $98,400,000
shall remain available until expended; of which not to exceed
$10,000,000 is authorized to be made available for making
payments or advances for expenses arising out of
contractual or reimbursable agreements with State and
local law enforcement agencies while engaged in
cooperative activities related to violent crime,
terrorism, organized crime, and drug investigations; and
of which $1,500,000 shall be available to maintain an
independent program office dedicated solely to the
relocation of the Criminal Justice Information Services
Division and the automation of fingerprint identification
services: Provided, That not to exceed $45,000 shall be
[[Page H8190]]
available for official reception and representation
expenses.
violent crime reduction programs
For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) as amended
(``the 1994 Act''), and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (``the Antiterrorism Act''),
$153,000,000, to remain available until expended, which shall
be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund; of
which $56,077,000 shall be for activities authorized by
section 190001(c) of the 1994 Act and section 811 of the
Antiterrorism Act; $76,423,000 shall be for activities
authorized by section 190001(b) of the 1994 Act, of which
$20,240,000 shall be for activities authorized by section 103
of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-
159), as amended; $4,000,000 shall be for training and
investigative assistance authorized by section 210501 of the
1994 Act; $9,500,000 shall be for grants to States, as
authorized by section 811(b) of the Antiterrorism Act;
$5,500,000 shall be for establishing DNA quality-assurance
and proficiency-testing standards, establishing an index to
facilitate law enforcement exchange of DNA identification
information, and related activities authorized by section
210501 of the 1994 Act; and $1,500,000 shall be for
investigative support for Senior Citizens Against Marketing
Scams, as authorized by section 250005 of the 1994 Act.
construction
For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings
and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law
(including equipment for such buildings); conversion and
extension of federally-owned buildings; and preliminary
planning and design of projects; $55,676,000, to remain
available until expended.
Drug Enforcement Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be
expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for
solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General;
expenses for conducting drug education and training programs,
including travel and related expenses for participants in
such programs and the distribution of items of token value
that promote the goals of such programs; purchase of not to
exceed 1,158 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,032 will be
for replacement only, for police-type use without regard to
the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal
year; and acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft; $733,038,000, of which not to exceed $1,800,000 for
research and $15,000,000 for transfer to the Drug Diversion
Control Fee Account for operating expenses shall remain
available until expended, and of which not to exceed
$4,000,000 for purchase of evidence and payments for
information, not to exceed $4,000,000 for contracting for
automated data processing and telecommunications equipment,
and not to exceed $2,000,000 for laboratory equipment,
$4,000,000 for technical equipment, and $2,000,000 for
aircraft replacement retrofit and parts, shall remain
available until September 30, 1998; and of which not to
exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses.
{time} 1730
Amendment offered by Mr. RADANOVICH
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Radanovich: Page 17, line 8, after
the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by
$109,000,000)''.
Page 99, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $109,000,000)''.
Page 99, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $109,000,000)''.
Mr. RADANOVICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich] will be
recognized for 5 minutes in support of this amendment.
Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich].
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, just earlier today the House voted to
increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $109 million. My
amendment would take this $109 million increase from the LSC and
transfer it to salaries and expenditures for the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, the question this amendment poses is simple. Would
Members rather further line the pockets of lawyers with $109 million of
taxpayers' dollars or would they rather see this $109 million spent
fighting drugs? In my mind the answer is simple. These taxpayers'
dollars would be much better spent fighting the war on drugs.
Today's proponents of increasing funding for the Legal Services
Corporation have spoken about restrictions placed upon the LSC in last
year's appropriations bill. They claim that these restrictions have
placed new limits upon the LSC and have forced it to act more
responsibly. But these proponents have failed to note that the LSC is
not a Federal agency of the Federal Government, so Congress has no way
of enforcing these restrictions. So in effect, Congress is providing
funding for the LSC, but we have no real control over this
organization.
The Legal Services Corporation is a portrait of Government
mismanagement. It has wreaked havoc in rural communities by bringing
numerous frivolous lawsuits against America's farmers. The Federal
Government can no longer afford to maintain a reckless and
irresponsible agency that engages in politically motivated litigation
at the expense of all the poor and all the taxpayers.
The LSC has hampered the country's fight against illegal drug use. It
has worked to prevent the eviction of drug dealers from public housing.
In contrast, the DEA has worked on behalf of the public, not against
it, to get drug dealers out of the public household and off the
streets.
Recent polls have shown an increase in illicit drug use by Americans
during the past several years. I am certain that the American people
would prefer to see their taxpayer dollars spent fighting the threat
that illegal drugs pose to their children. They do not want to see even
more of their tax dollars go toward public funding of lawyers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote sensibly, vote to take the
funds away from the irresponsible Legal Services Corporation and use
these funds to fight drug abuse.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not recall the gentleman
participating in the debate on the previous amendment. Did the
gentleman?
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would respond to
the gentleman that I did not.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
I think those arguments which were made during the last debate would
probably be better focused at that because that is where the issue was
formed about whether the body wanted to increase funding for Legal
Services up, incidentally, to the $250 million mark that is contained
in the authorization, which is not law but it is contained in the
authorization.
Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out that that is where that
debate occurred, and I am wondering why is the gentleman now
participating in the same debate?
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, what we have a responsibility to do is
represent the interests in our district, and the LSC is not well
thought of, and when they begin penalizing farmers for providing
housing and bringing up frivolous lawsuits that are politically
motivated, then I do not think any increase in that order is in good
order and I think the money is better spent in drug enforcement.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue yielding,
getting back into the substance of the debate, I just wonder if the
gentleman is aware that last year it was actually this subcommittee,
under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers,
that placed in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill
restrictions upon the Legal Services Corporation that the Legal
Services Corporation is living under.
[[Page H8191]]
Again, we have already had that debate, and the body just voted to
take from the offsets that we have.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has
his time and he is welcome to respond to this.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, during the debate to which the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] refers, it was made very
clear that many legal services corporations that did not want to abide
by the new rules were forming shell corporations to get around that, so
they could still involve themselves in social issues rather than really
dealing with the problems of the poor.
That is a fact, and I wanted to clarify that point. I think the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in the debate, which was really on the Legal Services
Corporation amendment, I actually tried to get the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton] to yield. If he is available I would be pleased to
engage him in the discussion. I would be pleased to engage the
gentleman from California likewise during my time on this issue.
I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I know
some of the folks came around and told him not to yield, but I think it
is really in the best interest of debate in order for him to do so.
Why now is the gentleman offering this amendment and making these
points when the debate occurred here just a while ago on this issue?
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman,
because that amendment passed.
I guess the bottom line is that we have a disagreement on whether or
not a corporation such as LSC, that has recklessly spent that money,
should be further funded beyond this point.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there were some
legitimate concerns raised about the activities that the Legal Services
Corporation was engaged in in the past.
I would suggest to the gentleman the clear victory last year. The
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] put real restrictions in the bill.
Is the gentleman familiar with the restrictions put in the bill last
year?
And I yield to the gentleman to answer that question.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for continuing to
yield, and, yes, I would rather see fruit come from that bill rather
than further fund them in areas where we have no proof that they backed
off some of the politically motivated stuff they are doing right now.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Does the gentleman acknowledge, or is the gentleman
aware of the restrictions put in last year that address some of the
concerns he mentioned when he spoke in favor of his amendment?
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any of the benefits
experienced yet of those restrictions. Until I see benefits resulting
from those changes in the law, then I do not support an increase in
funding for LSC.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is the gentleman familiar with the restrictions put
there?
Mr. RADANOVICH. That is my response, Mr. Chairman. Until we see some
benefit from the changes in this thing, I think it is totally
ridiculous to be funding LSC.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would suggest to
the gentleman that the legal services corporations are abiding by these
restrictions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana, in his debate on the
floor, when he would not yield to me on his time----
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to the gentleman
only because I did not have the time, or I would have been happy to do
so.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.
The gentleman from Indiana indicated that legal services corporations
would set up separate entities. My response to the gentleman from
Indiana is that this is America. Anybody can set up corporations
anywhere for a legal purpose, which may or may not have been done. But
let us focus here. This is funding for the Legal Services Corporation,
created, I believe, in 1974 for this purpose. This is funding to them.
They are not, at least based upon what I heard in the gentleman's
debate, they are not engaged in activities that would violate these
restrictions. We are talking about funding entities, the Legal Services
Corporation, that are abiding by these restrictions.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I can give the gentleman at least two examples where they
were deliberately setting up shell organizations to circumvent the
intent of the rules passed by the gentleman from Kentucky.
May I give the gentleman examples?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman gave them in debate.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Well, I want to give them in a little more
detail, if the gentleman wants that.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and let me
stipulate that some entities are set up. That gets back to this point.
Any group, which for a lawful purpose sets up activities outside of
these corporations, can do that. We cannot stop them from doing that
here.
But let me ask the gentleman, is there a commingling of funds?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, they are doing it deliberately to circumvent the law and the
rules passed by the gentleman from Kentucky. That is the problem.
{time} 1745
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have had this debate.
Now let me get back to the gentleman from California. He is taking
the $109 million that we took in offsets. Had he intended to offer this
amendment prior to the legal services amendment?
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, it was not my intention to try to do that because this
legislation passed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
Mollohan] has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Radanovich].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 254, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 342]
AYES--169
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
[[Page H8192]]
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Quillen
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Zeliff
NOES--254
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Collins (IL)
DeLay
Fazio
Gekas
Lincoln
Matsui
McDade
Myrick
Roth
Young (FL)
{time} 1803
Messrs. DINGELL, SAXTON, and LoBIONDO changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Ms. GREENE of Utah, Mr. SMITH of
Texas, and Mr. SPENCE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 342, I
inadvertently pushed the ``nay'' button. I meant to vote ``yes'' and I
would like the Record to reflect this statement.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
violent crime reduction programs
(including transfer of funds)
For activities authorized by sections 180104 and 190001(b)
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-322), as amended, and section 814 of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-132), and for the purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for police-type use, as otherwise authorized in this
title, $243,000,000, to remain available until expended,
which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund: Provided, That $71,000,000 shall be derived by transfer
from Community Oriented Policing Services, Violent Crime
Reduction Programs, for the purpose of providing State and
local police officers with equipment, conveyances, overtime
and other expenses associated with their participation on
drug task forces.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
salaries and expenses
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
immigration, naturalization, and alien registration,
including not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under
the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the
certificate of, the Attorney General; purchase for police-
type use (not to exceed 2,691, of which 1,711 are for
replacement only), without regard to the general purchase
price limitation for the current fiscal year, and hire of
passenger motor vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance and
operation of aircraft; and research related to immigration
enforcement; $1,667,614,000, of which not to exceed $400,000
for research shall remain available until expended; and of
which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be available for costs
associated with the training program for basic officer
training, and $5,000,000 is for payments or advances arising
out of contractual or reimbursable agreements with State and
local law enforcement agencies while engaged in cooperative
activities related to immigration; Provided, That none of the
funds available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
shall be available to pay any employee overtime pay in an
amount in excess of $30,000 during the calendar year
beginning January 1, 1997: Provided further, That uniforms
may be purchased without regard to the general purchase price
limitation for the current fiscal year; Provided further,
That not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
none of the funds provided in this or any other Act shall be
used for the continued operation of the San Clemente and
Temecula checkpoints unless the checkpoints are open and
traffic is being checked on a continuous 24-hour basis:
Provided further, That the Land Border Fee Pilot Project
scheduled to end September 30, 1996, is extended to September
30, 1999 for projects on both the northern and southern
borders of the United States, except that no pilot program
may implement a universal land border crossing toll.
violent crime Reduction programs
For activities authorized by sections 130002, 130005,
130006, 130007, and 190001(b) of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as
amended, and section 813 of the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132), $500,168,000,
to remain available until expended, which will be derived
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, of which
$95,784,000 shall be for expeditious deportation of denied
asylum applicants, $287,857,000 shall be for improving border
controls, and $116,527,000 shall be for detention and
deportation proceedings: Provided, That amounts not required
for asylum processing provided under the expeditious
deportation of denied asylum applicants shall also be
available for other deportation program activities.
construction
For planning, construction, renovation, equipping and
maintenance of buildings and facilities necessary for the
administration and enforcement of the laws relating to
immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, not
otherwise provided for, $9,841,000, to remain available until
expended.
Federal Prison System
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the administration, operation,
and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional
institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 836, of which
572 are for replacement only), and hire of law enforcement
and passenger motor vehicles; and for the provision of
technical assistance and advice on corrections related issues
to foreign governments; $2,817,816,000: Provided, That the
Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and
Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for
direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief
for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions:
Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison
System (FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with
a fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to
determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of
the FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to
the custody of the FPS: Provided further, That uniforms may
be purchased without regard to the general purchase price
limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further,
That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
not to exceed $50,000,000 for the activation of new
facilities shall remain available until September 30, 1998:
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for Contract
Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available
until expended to
[[Page H8193]]
make payments in advance for grants, contracts and
reimbursable agreements, and other expenses authorized by
section 501(c) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of
1980, as amended, for the care and security in the United
States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 4(d) of the Service Contract Act of
1965 (41 U.S.C. 353(d)), FPS may enter into contracts and
other agreements with private entities for periods of not to
exceed 3 years and 7 additional option years for the
confinement of Federal prisoners: Provided further, That the
National Institute of Corrections hereafter shall be included
in the FPS Salaries and Expenses budget, in the Contract
Confinement program and shall continue to perform its current
functions under 18 U.S.C. 4351, et seq., with the exception
of its grant program and shall collect reimbursement for
services whenever possible: Provided further, That any
unexpended balances available to the ``National Institute of
Corrections'' account shall be credited to and merged with
this appropriation, to remain available until expended.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. SCHROEDER
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Page 21, line 9, after
the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$14,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $13,000,000)''.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] will be
recognized for 10 minutes in support of her amendment, and a Member in
opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I think, is absolutely essential if we
are serious about justice. I truly believe that this body has been
guilty of giving people rights but not giving them a remedy, and if we
do not give them a remedy, we really have not given them a right.
Now, what am I talking about?
This amendment very simply adds enough money to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission that they at least will not have to furlough
anybody. It does not bring it anywhere near what the President
requested, it just brings it up from the slashing that was done by the
committee by adding $13 million so we will not have to furlough
anybody.
Now, why is that important?
Mr. Chairman, in 1990 the Equal Employment Commission had an average
of 51 cases per person. In 1995 that was up to 122.7 cases per person.
So we have loaded and loaded and loaded cases on.
Second, we have added all sorts of things to their work load. Since
1990 we have passed the Americans With Disabilities Act that the EEOC
is to enforce, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and many other things that
we have deferred to them. At the end of 1995 this agency had a backlog
of 96,000 cases. These are people waiting to be treated equally. This
goes to the core of what we are talking about.
If we do not pass my amendment, what we will be doing is forcing that
agency to cut the personnel that is needed to tend these cases. If we
do not pass this amendment, my colleagues are going to be going along
with the management of Mitsubishi. Remember Mitsubishi who said, ``In
your face,'' put the people in the bus, they paid them to go, they paid
them to go to the EEOC, and they paid them to be out there and just
defy people to really enforce the law. That is shocking in Amercia.
But if this Congress allows this cut, we are going to be saying that
is OK, that we are going to yield to that kind of corporate pressure.
So I end as I begin. We will have given people rights, but they do
not mean anything because there would not be anybody there to get them
a remedy.
So I really hope Members think about this and add this $13 million to
this so we at least hold it equally.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is basically all
salaries, it is all personnel, and we need these people to be able to
work off this backlog. I bet there is not a Member in this room who has
not had people complain about the slow attendance to attention to
sexual harassment cases, to equal opportunity cases, to disability
cases because of this huge, huge backlog.
So, Mr. Chairman, I know it is late and people want to be done with
this, but if we do not at least hold it equal, and again I remind my
colleagues this does not even bring it up to what the administration
asked for, I think it will be shameful.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] has expired.
Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized
for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment would take $14 million out of vitally
needed resources to open new prisons. The bill already reduces the
amount requested for prisons by $70 million because we take into
account slippages of activation of new prisons and carryover that the
Bureau of Prisons has estimated.
In addition, the Mollohan amendment that just passed reduced the
Bureau of Prisons by another $45 million. There is simply no more
there.
The Bureau of Prisons will open five new prisons this coming year. We
built five new prisons. They are waiting to be opened. Unless we
approve the salaries and expenses portion out of which my colleague is
taking this money, we cannot open those prisons. They will sit there
empty.
Is that what the gentlewoman wants? I submit that she should not.
These five new prisons, for example, a high security; that is,
maximum security facility in Beaumont, TX; a medical center in Butner,
NC; medium and minimum security prisons in Edgefield, SC; detention
facility in Seattle, WA; and a minimum and low security prison in
Elkton, OH. Those new prisons will provide over 6,000 new prison beds
that are vital to relieve the terrible overcrowding that exists in the
present prisons, not to mention the heavy influx of new prisoners that
are expected in 1997.
{time} 1815
The activations of some or all of these prisons would be jeopardized
by the gentlewoman's amendment.
Furthermore, the funding level of the EEOC is maintained at 1996
levels, like all other regulatory agencies in this bill. It is not
treated differently. There are all sorts of regulatory agencies in this
bill that decide people's rights and obligations. We could start with
the SEC, the FCC, all of the Justice regulatory agencies. And portions
of the Federal courts that are also in this bill.
Yes, we do not have enough money to finance a good portion or all of
these agencies, including the EEOC. But I say to the Members, we
treated them fairly. We kept them at level funding in 1996, like all
other regulatory agencies in the bill. Other agencies have been reduced
below 1996 in order to provide increases for fighting crime and illegal
aliens on our borders, and drugs. But we held EEOC harmless from those
reductions.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman
for his comments, but let me also point out two things. My
understanding is this can come easily out of that category because some
of the prisons are not finished yet, so they do not need all the
personnel that they thought they would when the budget was set up.
Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, that is just not correct. We already
have reduced the amount they requested by $70 million, as I said, for
that very reason. Some of the prisons were slipping on the opening
time. We are accounting for that. We reduced
[[Page H8194]]
their budget by $70 million below what they wanted. We cannot take any
more. The Mollohan amendment already takes $45 million. The gentlewoman
would take another $14 million. We simply cannot accept that. We do not
have the money.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, I would disagree with the gentleman, but let me go one step
further. The reason I feel the EEOC is very different from other
regulatory agencies is we have piled a bigger and bigger workload on
them. If we are going to pile a bigger workload on a regulatory agency
but treat it the same as SEC when it has a 96,000 case backlog, that is
wrong. This goes right to the core of citizenship.
Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, they have made
tremendous progress in their backlog reduction. I commend them for
that. They are working hard. I think if we keep things as they are,
that backlog is going to continue to decrease.
One, we kept EEOC at level funding, and held them harmless from cuts;
two, the money would come from the Bureau of Prisons, and we would not
be able to open the five new prisons that we have built, perhaps, next
year.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about putting the money where our
mouths have been. If we ask any Member of Congress whether or not they
are opposed to sexism, racism, ageism, and discrimination against the
disabled, they will all say yes. But rhetoric is one thing. If in fact
Members are against all of these things, they must ensure that we have
the kind of agency that can investigate the complaint, that can take
this cases.
We have heard the gentlewoman from Colorado say as of 1995 there are
96,000 cases backlogged. The only way we are going to reduce that
caseload is by providing the necessary resources to do the work.
The offset makes good sense. The prisons are opening later than
anticipated, so they will not need as much money to staff the new
prisons as quickly as was believed in the past. So if the money is not
needed, why put money over there when it will not be utilized, it will
not be used? Put the money into EEOC. Make sure that we address the
problems of racism, sexism, ageism, and take care of the disabled.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes abundantly good
sense for very good and practical reasons. If indeed we believe in our
laws, we must have a structure for the enforcement. The EEOC is the
structure that we have committed ourselves to for the enforcement of
all the rights now that we have put on the books.
To put laws to protect workers in the workplace, to put laws to
protect against discrimination, to put laws against age discrimination
and not have any mechanism for enforcement is to say to the American
people, ``We really were not serious when we put those laws on,'' or to
take the structure away from them. So this amendment allows for us to
keep our commitment, making sure it is, indeed, enforced.
Beyond that, it is also a fiscally responsible way of enforcing our
laws. What rights do we have? We have the rights to go into courts. We
can ameliorate these, or we can fine-tune these for dispute
resolutions. It is the EEOC that does that.
So not only for good constitutional reasons, but also for very
practical reasons, I ask Members to support this amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the good news is, and I thank
the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding time to me, the good news is
there is a crack in the logjam. The bad news is that without this
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado, we will have a
reversing of the progress that has been made by the EEOC by furloughing
employees when they are most needed.
They are most needed for cases involving discrimination against those
who are physically challenged. They are most needed for age
discrimination cases. They are most needed for race discrimination
cases. They are most needed for sexual harassment cases, and in
particular, let us not try to hide behind confusion.
We know that one of the major cases in this Nation has just gotten
before the EEOC. In fact, they have been forceful and effective. That
is the Mitsubishi case. We should not be afraid of this case, there are
such cases in this Nation, businesses that have not remedied
voluntarily charges of sexual harassment against women in the
workplace.
Why are we not undermining the EEOC when we most need them? It is
clearly important that people in America find that their Government is
concerned about equal opportunity, and that the Government has the real
resources to fight discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say this is a good amendment. It does
not make us soft on crime, it makes the workplaces of America free of
discrimination the way it should be!
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor
Holmes Norton, who at one time headed the EEOC.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms.
Norton] is recognized for 4 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me, and for cosponsoring this amendment with me.
What we are trying to do here is very straightforward. The President
sees an emergency at the EEOC. The backlog is out of control. He asked
for $35 million. We have asked for only $13 million.
The chairman of the subcommittee says that EEOC was left at level
funding. The problem is they were left at level funding in 1996, they
were left at level funding in 1995, and they are being left at level
funding now. The law does not give them the right to leave complaints
level, however.
Mr. Chairman, we learned of the emergency conditions at the EEOC as a
result of the investigation by some women Members on both sides of the
aisle of the Mitsubishi case, which broke into the open when the
company, for the first time that I know, in history, led a retaliation
against its own employees by paying for people to protest the mere
filing of complaints.
Mr. Chairman, what we learned was that the number of employees had
actually decreased since I left the commission, or to quote Chairman
Casellas, ``The EEOC has not received any significant increase in
funding since the late 1970's when it was chaired by Delegate Norton.''
When I left the EEOC there were 3,390 employees. Now there are 2,813
employees. They will have a furlough, the Chairman says, that is what
is left of them. Now they will be cutting staff, closing offices, and
turning down cases. We are talking about everybody's district, because
these complaints come from everybody's district. We are talking about
setting back the Chairman's--Gilbert Casellas, EEOC Chair--very
commendable effort to put alternative dispute resolution into place.
When I was at the EEOC we used that, and that is how I got rid of the
backlog. This new Chair has come forward and is making great strides,
and we are tying his hands behind him. When I was at the EEOC I had
many more employees, and yet I did not have the large number of sexual
harassment complaints, thousands and thousands of such complaints; I
did not have the Americans With Disabilities Act. That act has almost
nothing in common with other EEOC complaints, and EEOC must develop a
brand new methodology. I did not have the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
which essentially was a rewrite of the statute.
Mr. Chairman, we may disagree on civil rights matters. Some of us are
for affirmative action, some of us oppose it. Some of us are for goals
and timetables, others oppose it. But everyone
[[Page H8195]]
in this body believes in the right to file a complaint when there has
been sexual discrimination, race discrimination, discrimination based
on religion.
To vote against this increase is to vote for sexual harassment, to
vote for Mitsubishi. The fastest growing complaints at EEOC are, first,
sex discrimination complaints, and then retaliation complaints. The
EEOC is 100,000 cases down. In a bipartisan way they now have an
approach. The chairman of the subcommittee himself admits they are
moving forward. The amount in this appropriation will move them
backward. They are helping themselves. We must not leave them alone.
What we have done for the last several years is to defund EEOC at a
time when women, very frankly, are pressing the agency beyond its
capability. Do not kill the EEOC. This is the time for Members who may
be voting against us on civil rights measure after civil rights measure
to stand up and say, When it comes to whether or not people in my
district can go down and file a complaint of age discrimination at a
time of downsizing of the Government, I'll be darned, I'm going to give
these folks enough money to process those complaints.
This $13 million will not hurt the Bureau of Prisons one jot or
tittle. We can count on them to be behind in construction. Please help
the EEOC. Vote for this small increase.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we would think that, from the debate from
the other side, that we were shutting down the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. As I have said before, we give the EEOC the
same amount of money in this bill as they have this year. They are
making great progress on working off their backlog. I see no reason why
that will not continue with the funding that is provieded in this bill.
So they have adequate funding, while we cut practically every other
agency in this bill. Ask the State Department, ask the Commerce
Department, ask every agency, practically, within both of those
organizations, that have been cut. They did not get requested funding,
they were slashed in order for us to find money to keep agencies like
the EEOC operating at uncut levels. So the EEOC has adequate funding.
We made sure of that in this bill.
No, they did not get an increase, but hardly anyone else did. But we
think the money is adequate to satisfy the demand placed upon the EEOC
so people will get reasonably adequate coverage.
Mr. Chairman, where does the money come from if the amendment passes?
Again, let me emphasize, they would take money from the Bureau of
Prisons salaries and expenses account. That would keep us from possibly
opening the five brand new prisons that are ready to open in 1997. They
would sit there empty, gleaming behemoths, empty of the prisoners that
are crowded in other prisons in this country.
{time} 1830
We would be in violation perhaps of the Constitution and the Supreme
Court's edicts on overcrowding if we did not occupy these prisons that
we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Please do not
take that money. There is hardly anything more important than relieving
the overcrowded Federal prisons we have and not being able to house the
new prisoners that will be entering prison this year. These are
convicted murderers and drug dealers and all sorts of heinous crimes
that we need space for in these prisons. I urge the Committee and all
the Members to reject this amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
the Schroeder amendment to increase the budget for the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission [EEOC] by $13 million.
Under this appropriations bill, the EEOC would get approximately the
same amount of money that it received in the fiscal year 1996
appropriations bill. While that may seem adequate, it is not enough to
allow the EEOC to continue its operations without making serious
cutbacks that will hamper the effectiveness of the agency.
Each year, the Commission receives an unprecedented number of
complaints from the private sector. When the present Commissioner,
Gilbert Casellas, took over in 1994, there was a backlog of more than
100,000 cases. There still is a backlog, because EEOC is understaffed
and underfunded. Keeping the agency's funding at the same level as last
year will force an agencywide furlough and may necessitate the closing
of some field offices, increasing the already overwhelming backlog of
cases.
From October 1994 through the first half of this year, the EEOC
resolved 518 lawsuits and achieved a number of highly visible
successes. The agency was responsible for the largest sexual harassment
settlement--$18.25 million--against Del Laboratories of Long Island,
NY. In 1995, the EEOC prevailed in its first trial involving a male
being subjected to harassment by a female. The court ordered Domino's
to pay damages of $237,000 to a male worker who had been harassed by
his immediate supervisor.
Recently, the EEOC has authorized participation in a class action
sexual harassment lawsuit against Mitsubishi Motors Manufacturing of
America which has the potential to be the largest sexual harassment
litigation case in U.S. history. However, if EEOC is inadequately
funded, the agency will be unable to pursue the case against
Mitsubishi, and thousands of other cases will fall by the wayside,
unresolved.
I urge my colleagues to support the Schroeder amendment which will
allow the EEOC to continue to address the problems of discrimination
and sexual harassment that still exist in the American marketplace.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder] will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
violent crime reduction programs
For substance abuse treatment in Federal prisons as
authorized by section 32001(e) of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as
amended, $25,224,000, to remain available until expended,
which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund.
buildings and facilities
For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new
facilities, leasing the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Facility;
purchase and acquisition of facilities and remodeling, and
equipping of such facilities for penal and correctional use,
including all necessary expenses incident thereto, by
contract or force account; and constructing, remodeling, and
equipping necessary buildings and facilities at existing
penal and correctional institutions, including all necessary
expenses incident thereto, by contract or force account;
$395,700,000, to remain available until expended, of which
not to exceed $14,074,000 shall be available to construct
areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That labor of
United States prisoners may be used for work performed under
this appropriation: Provided further, That not to exceed 10
percent of the funds appropriated to ``Buildings and
Facilities'' in this Act or any other Act may be transferred
to ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison System, upon
notification by the Attorney General to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in compliance with provisions set forth in section 605 of
this Act: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, not to exceed $36,570,000 shall be available
for the renovation and construction of United States Marshals
Service prisoner-holding facilities.
federal prison industries, incorporated
The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with
the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without
regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104
of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in
carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the
current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase
of (not to exceed five for replacement only), and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries,
incorporated
Not to exceed $3,042,000 of the funds of the corporation
shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an
accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the
corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such
amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of
claims, and expenditures which the said accounting system
requires to be
[[Page H8196]]
capitalized or charged to cost of commodities acquired or
produced, including selling and shipping expenses, and
expenses in connection with acquisition, construction,
operation, maintenance, improvement, protection, or
disposition of facilities and other property belonging to the
corporation or in which it has an interest.
Office of Justice Programs
justice assistance
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Missing
Children's Assistance Act, as amended, including salaries and
expenses in connection therewith, and with the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984, as amended, $100,000,000, to remain
available until expended, as authorized by section 1001 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as
amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524).
amendment offered by mr. schumer
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer:
Page 25, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 84, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed, we may have a substitute
within a few minutes coming from the gentleman from Kentucky, which has
been agreed to; but awaiting that substitute, I will explain what this
amendment does and then it will be obvious what the substitute does.
This amendment is a very straightforward one, Mr. Chairman. When we
passed the terrorism bill into law 3 months ago, we authorized $20
million in funds for research and development of new technology that
would help us in our fight against terrorism. The amendment which I am
offering with my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff],
simply implements that plan in this appropriations measure.
When I first planned this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I had no idea we
would be debating in the shadow of a tragedy like the crash of TWA
Flight 800. We still do not know for sure what caused that disaster but
the speculation about possible terrorism only strengthens the principal
reason to support this amendment. Simply put, America faces an
increasing threat from terrorism within our borders and we are not as
well prepared as we should be.
The World Trade Center bombing showed us how easy it is to launch a
terrorist attack in our country and the tragedy in Oklahoma City
reminded us that a terrorist can strike in any city on any day. The
recent attack in Saudi Arabia proved that even when you are
anticipating an attack, terrorists can still strike.
Whatever the cause of last week's crash off Long Island, the
speculation underscores once more how vulnerable we are. Whether this
was a bombing or an accident, we cannot shut our eyes and hope this
threat will go away. There will be a next time, and we must be ready.
In everything that we do to fight terrorism, technology is a crucial
tool. The current investigation of Flight 800's crash involves sonar,
chemical testing of residue, and computer simulations programmed to
match the patterns of debris on the ocean floor.
We can be using that same sophisticated technology to stop terrorism
before it happens. We simply must decide to make funding for research
and development a priority and then stick to that promise.
Here are just a few examples of technology we could help develop with
this money:
New bomb detection systems that could be deployed in airports,
government buildings and other high threat facilities.
Specially strengthened cargo holds on airplanes that could partially
or even completely contain the percussive impact of an explosion.
Imagine, having an airplane be safe from any explosion that might go
off in its cargo bay.
More sensitive sensors and registers to measure and specifically
identify chemical or biological agents that could be used by
terrorists.
It is not that far away. We can, if we put a little money and a
little effort in, actually come up with detection systems that would
stop the worst tools that terrorists use against us, and technology to
enter buildings silently so that SWAT teams can quickly and silently
deal with hostage situations.
Any one of these advances would give us fantastic new tools to fight
terrorism. Experts believe all of them might be feasible if we are
willing to devote some resources to them.
Mr. Chairman, I suspect someone might say that $20 million is too
much money to spend on this research, but let us get a little
perspective on this. Every year the Pentagon spends about $35 billion,
that is billion with a B, to fund R&D technology to fight enemies in
other countries. Under this amendment we still will not even spend $25
million on technology to protect us from terrorists.
Someone else might say that the bill before us already provides $50
million for research and that is true, but none of that money is
specifically dedicated to antiterrorism. About 40 percent is earmarked
for some other purpose. And much of it will go to policy studies that,
while valuable, have nothing to do with technology or terrorism.
In short, Mr. Chairman, we need a concerted national effort to
develop antiterrorism technology, not a token effort. We need a
Manhattan project, not Mr. Wizard's junior high school fair.
The new terrorism law was only the first step in our efforts to make
Americans safer. We should make sure that we do something with that
proposal. The terrorism bill set aside $20 million and this bill should
set aside $20 million. That would be my ideal.
For that reason I would urge my colleagues to support the Schumer-
Schiff amendment and keep our promises on the terrorism bill.
amendment offered by mr. rogers as a substitute for the amendment
offered by mr. schumer
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment, and
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for
the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment
is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Schumer:
On page 25, line 20, at the end of the paragraph and before
the period, insert the following: ``: Provided, That of the
amount made available from the local law enforcement block
grant for technology programs, $10,000,000 shall be available
for programs under section 820 and section 821 of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-132).''
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, what the substitute does and it has been
discussed with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], is provide $10 million rather
than $20 million for counterterrorism technology and take it out of the
$20 million that is already available for technology programs under the
local law enforcement block grant that is already in the bill. This is
a sensible way to do it.
Obviously there is a recognized need for this money. Both the fiscal
year 1996 bill and this bill already include, as I said, a $20 million
increase for National Institute of Justice programs from the local law
enforcement block grant program. That is a 67-percent increase, by the
way, for NIJ technology programs.
As the gentleman is aware, this $20 million was an unexpected
windfall for the NIJ as a result of the manner in which the law
enforcement block grant formula was drafted. This money is available
for a variety of technology initiatives, including terrorism-related
technology. We ensure in this substitute by providing language, that
$10 million of these funds will be used for terrorism. We will ensure
that the money is available.
Mr. Chairman, this substitute would provide that $10 million out of
the $20 million that is available for technology programs from the
local law enforcement block grant program will be available for
counterterrorism. We agree to it and think it is a good idea.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
[[Page H8197]]
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the gentleman's amendment,
there is $50 million for this OJP block grant account, some of it is
earmarked, but out of $20 million that is not earmarked, statutorily we
require that $10 million go to this antiterrorism effort; is that
correct?
Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SCHUMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that would mean
that nothing could get in the way of this $10 million, I presume?
Mr. ROGERS. I think it is pretty plain.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman.
One other thing I would ask the gentleman, just given his knowledge,
given the fact that the Senate will allocate a larger amount of money,
it is pretty certain that in the conference we would get at least this
$10 million if the Senate on this specific account allocates a larger
amount of money for this; is that a good guess? I am not asking the
gentleman for a commitment.
Mr. ROGERS. Let me get this straight. Is the gentleman asking me to
guess what the Senate is going to do on this?
Mr. SCHUMER. No. I am asking what the gentleman is going to do in
conference if the Senate puts a higher amount in there.
Mr. ROGERS. We will do the right thing.
Mr. SCHUMER. I trust the gentleman will do the right thing, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that this is an amendment that
the gentleman from New Mexico and I worked on and the fact that we can
come to an amiable agreement. I want to thank the gentleman from
Kentucky and the gentleman from West Virginia for helping facilitate
that.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say I have
worked with the gentleman from new York and with the chairman too. He
has been very gracious in this matter and I appreciate it.
I wonder if the chairman would just say again, the $10 million the
chairman is proposing for antiterrorism research and development, that
is going to come out of the $30 million that is not earmarked in the
NIJ budget?
Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SCHIFF. But that means that some other programs that NIJ had
funded might not be funded, then? Because $30 million was their last
year's budget.
Mr. ROGERS. They have a huge increase. This will not be a problem.
There is $20 million in the bill for technology programs and $10
million related to anti-terrorism. This amendment would simply ensure
that $10 million of that must go for this purpose.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join this very polite and bipartisan debate
in favor of more technology spent on law enforcement, in this case
specifically to fight terrorism. I would commend the bill's sponsor for
the plus-up in NIJ technology programs. I think that moves us in the
right direction. I would point out to my colleagues that the NIJ now
commits substantial funding to something that is very important: making
defense technology available for law enforcement purposes.
It has probably occurred to the sponsors of this bipartisan
compromise amendment that there is much to learn from the defense
sector that might impact positively on our fight against urban
terrorism. That is why numbers of us on the Committee on National
Security joined together to introduce legislation that is partially
addressed by an amendment earlier today offered by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer] and partially addressed by this amendment.
Let me say that the gentleman from New York just talked about the
disparity between funds spent on defense R&D, approximately $35
billion, with a B, versus funds spent on efforts for R&D in the law
enforcement sector, which he pointed out are in the millions of
dollars. I hope that we will share more of that $35 billion in defense
R&D money, which I fully support, with the law enforcement effort and
would point out that many of the things that the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer] listed as possible derivatives of the expenditure of
law enforcement R&D moneys, may be effectively provided for by
technologies developed in the defense sector.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman is exactly right.
Some of this money would well be used to take all the research, the
formidable research that is done under the Defense Department and
translate it into civilian uses which could make us all safer.
Ms. HARMAN. Hear, hear. Reclaiming my time, I would say that I
applaud what he said and point out to my colleagues that we have
established over the past few years law technology centers around the
country. There are five of them. One of them is in New York. Another of
them is in southern California located in El Segundo, CA, in my
district. What these centers do is to canvas what defense technologies
are available and then figure out whether there are law enforcement
applications that would be useful and help generate a market for the
development of those technologies for law enforcement.
{time} 1845
I have been calling this a win-win-win. It is a win for the defense
sector, which has new markets to sell into. It is a win for law
enforcement, which has much better tools. And it is a win for the
public, which is much safer.
So I think this compromise, bipartisan amendment puts us $10 million
closer to better solutions. Maybe it is also a small gesture to the
families of those who tragically lost their lives on the TWA plane to
Paris, those lives may not have been lost in vain. This Congress
appreciates the magnitude of the loss, and we are working as hard as we
can to prevent another one.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for two reasons. First of all, I did not get a
chance earlier and I wanted to say now that I express my commendation
to the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, to the gentleman from
West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, to all the members of the appropriations
subcommittee for the fine job they did with respect to this
appropriations bill. Although I do not think it has been discussed at
length, there is significant funding for agencies like the FBI, the DEA
and for the U.S. attorneys who prosecute criminal offenses.
As a former career prosecutor, I have to say I had an enduring
frustration with legislative bodies that would pass new law after new
law against crime and tougher penalties and all that but would not
provide the resources to enforce those laws. So it would sound like
great rhetoric and you could go back to your constituents and say: Look
what I have done to fight crime. And it had little meaning if there was
not enough money put behind the system to bring an effect to those few
criminal statutes and higher penalties.
The subcommittee of the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, I
think, has very strenuously labored to recognize that problem to meet
the goals of adequate funding for law enforcement. With that having
been said generally, I want to say on the specifics, I think that we
are now of one mind to try to direct $10 million toward specifically
antiterrorism research. Of all the law enforcement duties of the
Federal Government, it seems to me that antiterrorism is among the
highest because clearly that is an area that needs Federal intervention
and cannot simply be done city by city and State by State.
I want to say to Chairman Rogers that I personally will support the
amendment that he has offered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his
leadership on the issue. He worked hard on this in the antiterrorism
proposal, the authorization, and the compromise that we have reached
here is
[[Page H8198]]
not as much money as we would want but it is real money and it is
there. It will give us a good start. I want to thank the gentleman for
his leadership on it.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, tragedy hit close to home last week for my family when
one of our neighbors on our block fell victim to the crash of TWA
flight 800. Let us be clear, we do not know whether or not terrorism
was the cause, but, either way, the crash is one more wake-up call that
terrorism can happen in America. We must all take care not to
politicize this tragedy, but we must also not forget that we made a
promise to the American people when we enacted the antiterrorism bill
to develop more advanced bomb detection systems, stronger cargo holds
on airplanes, more sensitive sensors to identify biological and
chemical agents, and new technology that will allow our swat teams to
enter buildings silently and deal with hostage situations more quickly.
The Schumer-Schiff amendment makes sure we have some of the funding
that is necessary to fulfill this promise. If we can afford the space
station or star wars, I know we can afford $10 million more to protect
ourselves against a real danger within our shores, terrorism.
This amendment alone is not the answer to terrorism. We need to do
much more. My colleagues from New York and New Mexico have been
fighting for more money and for this cause all year, but this amendment
is one large step in the right direction. Let us not wait for the next
wake-up call, the next tragedy without enacting it. I strongly support
the Schumer-Schiff amendment and I commend both of the gentleman for
their hard work on this amendment.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take a moment to
compliment the Members that are on the floor here today because I think
it is becoming painfully obvious in 1996, something that has been
obvious to a number of us for many, many years, that unfortunately we
are engaged in a war against people around this globe who are simply
interested in targeting Americans, who are simply interested in
spreading terror to make political statements, trying to break down
society frankly as we understand it, know it, and love it in the United
States of America.
I think, frankly, the frightening message to Americans is that we in
fact, innocent men, women, and children in this country, are targets of
some of these terrorists. I think that what is critically important for
those who have looked at these issues, and I do not know that we have
many Members that we would describe as experts, but when we talk to the
experts, obviously the key to stopping terrorism is to get it right at
its root, where it exists.
I think that being aware of the fact that we are in this war and in
this battle can remove some of the fear and replace the fear with a
steely resolve that America will not tolerate this kind of brutal
violence against its citizens and that the citizens of the civilized
world, the leaders of the civilized world are going to have to band
together, take very tough action to let the terrorist outlaws around
the world know that they are not safe. They are not safe anywhere
because civilized people on this globe cannot tolerate this kind of
wanton violence.
This is just one small step. I think we have taken a number of steps
over the last several years to fund the kind of programs we need to
fund in order to have the kind of surveillance and intelligence that we
need.
I want to compliment the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], my
friend. I want to compliment the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]
and also the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for their interest in
this. Frankly, I think this Congress needs to do its own assessment of
all the various agencies involved in counterterrorism. Are we in fact
doing as well as we can be doing?
I have questions in my mind and I am sure many Members have questions
in their minds about this, but I do not think there is anything that is
a higher priority for our country than to win the war or to wage the
war, maybe we can never win the war, but to wage the war against
terrorism for all the innocent people that frankly need to be stood up
for.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Schiff-Schumer
amendment.
Good technology is an important key to a successful counterterrorism
policy.
Look at how the Wall Street Journal characterized our antiterrorism
effort in their headlines yesterday:
Despite Tough Words, Antiterrorism Effort in U.S. is Still
Flawed--Political, Legal Constraints, Old Technology Hinder
FBI as Threat Grows.
This amendment today is about correcting one of those flaws--old
technology.
The money in the Schiff amendment is crucial to the United States
effort to research and develop explosive detection and weapons
detection devices that can be applied to prevent terrorism from
occuring.
We have to be smarter than the terrorists. We have the technological
capability to outsmart them. There are several technologies in the
pipeline on explosive detection and weapons detection that are more
than promising--they are probable.
But we need to get money to NIJ to speed up the process of getting
them to a point where law enforcement officers can use them.
The Schiff-Schroeder amendment puts money that the Congress has
already authorized for counter-terrorism research into the hands of our
law enforcement technology experts. This amendment would tell them to
accelerate the good work they are doing on explosive detection and
weapons detection. This is a race for a vaccine--a vaccine against
terrorism.
This Congress has done a remarkable job of beefing up law enforcement
technology. It has been one area where partisanship has not
infiltrated. I'm proud to have worked with Mr. Schiff, Mr. McCollum,
and Mr. Boehlert, and Mr. Schumer to craft this bipartisan initiative
to update law enforcement with the best technology available. This
amendment is part of that effort. It's good for America's safety.
Please support it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, this is bipartisanship at its best. We have had a very
somber week, and it would be certainly inappropriate for any of us to
come to this House and this time to seek opportunity. This legislation
and amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] answers and begins to answer
an effort to make our country safe and our citizens safer.
I rise in support of this amendment in order to ensure that we begin
what has to be a long progress or a long journey, and that journey
includes securing large and open areas where citizens find themselves
open and unprotected. The monies that will be allowed will help us have
new bomb detection systems that can be used in high-threat facilities.
That includes airports and Federal buildings, especially strengthening
cargo holds on airplanes.
It makes more sensitive sensors to measure and identify chemical or
biological agents that could be used by terrorists. It also provides in
the technology to interbuild them silently so that SWAT teams can deal
with hostage situations quietly and silently. It is appropriate as we
look at appropriating for the Department of Justice that we also ensure
that it has the highest level of technology, as we have begun to
recognize that the important role of this government is to provide for
the safety of its citizens, wherever they might be.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for
his efforts on behalf of this amendment. I would hope that we would
find this amendment again being the first step to what has to be a
very, very long journey, more technology and more dollars to wage the
fight against terrorism, both in this Nation but as well around the
world.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] as a substitute for the amendment
offered
[[Page H8199]]
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
state and local law enforcement assistance
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by part E of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for
State and Local Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance
Improvements, notwithstanding the provisions of section 511
of said Act, $315,000,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 1001 of title I of said
Act, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), of
which $60,000,000 shall be available to carry out the
provisions of chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of title I of
said Act, for discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs.
violent crime reduction programs, state and local law enforcement
assistance
For assistance (including amounts for administrative costs
for management and administration, which amounts shall be
transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance''
account) authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended
(``the 1994 Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990
Act''); $2,119,900,000, to remain available until expended,
which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund; of which $571,000,000 shall be for Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants, pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by
the House of Representatives on February 14, 1995, except
that for purposes of this Act, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico shall be considered a ``unit of local government'' as
well as a ``State'', for the purposes set forth in paragraphs
(A), (B), (D), (F), and (I) of section 101(a)(2) of H.R. 728
and for establishing crime prevention programs involving
cooperation between community residents and law enforcement
personnel in order to control, detect, or investigate crime
or the prosecution of criminals: Provided, That no funds
provided under this heading may be used as matching funds for
any other Federal grant program: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the
Attorney General may transfer up to $18,000,000 of this
amount for drug courts pursuant to title V of the 1994 Act,
consistent with the reprogramming procedures outlined in
section 605 of this Act: Provided further, That funds may
also be used to defray the costs of indemnification insurance
for law enforcement officers; of which $50,000,000 shall be
for grants to upgrade criminal records, as authorized by
section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
of 1993, as amended, and section 4(b) of the National Child
Protection Act of 1993; of which $245,000,000 shall be
available as authorized by section 1001 of title I of the
1968 Act, to carry out the provisions of subpart 1, part E of
title I of the 1968 Act, notwithstanding section 511 of said
Act, for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistant Programs; of which $330,000,000 shall
be for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, as
authorized by section 242(j) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended; of which $680,000,000 shall be
for Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing
Incentive Grants pursuant to subtitle A of title II of the
1994 Act, of which $170,000,000 shall be available for
payments to States for incarceration of criminal aliens, and
of which $12,500,000 shall be available for the Cooperative
Agreement Program; of which $6,000,000 shall be for the Court
Appointed Special Advocate Program, as authorized by section
218 of the 1990 Act; of which $1,000,000 shall be for Child
Abuse Training Programs for Judicial Personnel and
Practitioners, as authorized by section 224 of the 1990 Act;
of which $145,000,000 shall be for Grants to Combat Violence
Against Women to States, units of local government and Indian
tribal governments, as authorized by section 1001(a)(18) of
the 1968 Act; of which $33,000,000 shall be for Grants to
Encourage Arrest Policies to States, units of local
government, and Indian tribal governments, as authorized by
section 1001(a)(19) of the 1968 Act; of which $8,000,000
shall be for Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse
Enforcement Assistance Grants as authorized by section 40295
of the 1994 Act; of which $1,000,000 shall be for training
programs to assist probation and parole officers who work
with released sex offenders, as authorized by section
40152(c) of the 1994 Act; of which $550,000 shall be for
grants for televised testimony, as authorized by section
1001(a)(7) of the 1968 Act; of which $1,750,000 shall be
for national stalker and domestic violence reduction, as
authorized by section 40603 of the 1994 Act; of which
$35,000,000 shall be for grants for residential substance
abuse treatment for State prisoners as authorized by
section 1001(a)(17) of the 1968 Act; of which $3,000,000
shall be for grants to States and units of local
government for projects to improve DNA analysis, as
authorized by section 1001(a)(22) of the 1968 Act; of
which $1,000,000 shall be for Law Enforcement Family
Support Programs, as authorized by section 1001(a)(21) of
the 1968 Act; of which $900,000 shall be for the Missing
Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, as authorized
by section 240001(c) of the 1994 Act; of which $500,000
shall be for Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Programs, as
authorized by section 220002(h) of the 1994 Act; of which
$5,000,000 shall be for State Courts Assistance Grants, as
authorized by section 210602 of the 1994 Act; of which
$200,000 shall be for a National Baseline Study on Campus
Sexual Assault, as authorized by section 40506(e) of the
1994 Act; and of which $2,000,000 shall be for public
awareness programs addressing marketing seams aimed at
senior citizens, as authorized by section 250005(3) of the
1994 Act: Provided further, That funds made available in
fiscal year 1997 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended, may be obligated for programs to assist States in
the litigation processing of death penalty Federal habeas
corpus petitions and for drug testing initiatives:
Provided further, That any 1996 balances for these
programs shall be transferred to and merged with this
appropriation: Provided further, That if a unit of local
government uses any of the funds made available under this
title to increase the number of law enforcement officers,
the unit of local government will achieve a net gain in
the number of law enforcement officers who perform
nonadministrative public safety service.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Scott: Page 26, line 20, after the
dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $497,500,000)''.
Page 28, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $497,500,000)''.
Page 33, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $497,500,000)''.
Page 33, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $497,500,000)''.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and the
time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] and a Member
opposed, each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment transfers $497,500,000 from the Prison
Grant Program under this bill to the Incentive Grants for local
delinquency prevention programs, also funded under the bill. It is
drawn so that it will not affect money for State criminal alien
incarceration or money for the cooperative agreement program funded
under this section.
Mr. Chairman, this Nation spends tens of billions of dollars every
year addressing crime after it has already been committed. In the last
15 years, the number of inmates in State and Federal prisons more than
tripled, from 319,000 in 1980 to over one million in 1994. During the
same period, the population in local jails increased 165 percent, while
the United States population increased just 15 percent.
As a result of these sharp increases in incarceration, the United
States has become the most prolific incarcerator in the world. The
average incarceration rate, internationally, is about 100 percent
100,000 population. The United States already locks up over 500 per
100,000 population, and in inner cities, the rate goes over 3,000 per
100,000. Yet, the crime rate has not abated and crime remains one of
the top concerns of the American public.
{time} 1900
We now have experience as well as research that shows that increasing
incarceration after a point has no effect on reducing crime. We have
long passed that point. At the same time we have simple evidence from
research and experience showing that prevention programs aimed at at-
risk youth and children significantly reduces crime. Yet, compared to
the tens of billions we spend on crime after the fact, we spend very
little focused on preventing young people from becoming criminals in
the first place.
[[Page H8200]]
Recently, the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary
went around the country holding hearings on how to reduce juvenile
crime. The Congressional Black Caucus crime and youth braintrusts held
a whole day of hearings on the subject. I attended all of those
hearings. During those hearings, witness after witness, including law
enforcement officials, talked about an impending crime wave over the
next decade due to the expected increases in the number of teenagers,
and many indicated that our best hope for reducing the crime was to
focus on at-risk youth and children while they are young and before
they become serious criminals.
Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that we ought to incarcerate any less
than we do today. Based on our current policies, if we do nothing to
our incarceration levels, we will continue to lock up more people per
every 100,000 population than any other country on Earth. I am saying
that, having more than tripled the incarceration in this country in the
last 15 years, at great expense to the taxpayer and with little effect
on crime, that we are already incarcerating high enough levels to get
all of the crime reduction benefits we can hope to get from
incarceration and, in spite of the emotional sound bite appeal of more
and more incarceration, more and more incarceration just will not
reduce crime.
The amount of money in this amendment will be a drop in the bucket in
terms of financing incarceration. It amounts to about $1 million per
congressional district if divided equally around the country. Now, the
State of Virginia has already committed itself to spend $11 billion,
about $1 billion per congressional district, over the next 10 years as
a result of new policies. This amendment, therefore, would be less than
1 percent of what Virginia will be spending.
As we have already shown, that incarceration will not reduce crime,
but that money would have a great effect if it is spent on prevention
programs. Dropout prevention, afterschool programs, summer recreation,
drug abuse programs, even the much vilified midnight basketball program
all have been shown to save much more money than they cost in later
prison and welfare expenditures. Those, by the way, who trash midnight
basketball fail to point out that it is a program which uses
participation in an organized basketball league as a hook to get young
people into education courses, drug avoidance counseling and job
training, and they also fail to point out, as a recent Rand Corp. study
confirmed, that when midnight basketball programs are established, the
crime rate goes down dramatically in that neighborhood.
With an average of about $1 million per congressional district
targeted toward at-risk youth, each congressional district could
provide about 1,500 latchkey children with afterschool care for a year,
or 2,000 children with a summer camp program, or 600 drug addicted
youth with drug treatment, or fund five $200,000 juvenile mentoring
programs, which is what many of the at-risk funds are used for now, or
any combination of these programs which have been proven to reduce
crime.
We can do all of these things, which will reduce crime, or we can
waste the money by throwing it into the bottomless pit of prison
construction, which will do nothing to reduce crime.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, for support for this amendment and put the
interest of crime victims and taxpayers ahead of political expediency.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] seek time
in opposition?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers] for 10 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment,
which would eliminate $497.5 million from the State prison grant
program to increase funding for juvenile justice programs.
I would point out to the Members that the State prison grant program
is a formula program. Every State would receive moneys under the prison
grant program. This is a half a billion dollars that States will not
get if this amendment is successful.
While the gentleman's intent to increase funds to address youth
violence is a laudable one, the bill we have before us already provides
a $30.5 million increase over what the administration requested to
provide additional grants to States that are implementing get tough
prosecution policies for juveniles who commit violent crimes. The bill
already is a ``macho man'' on violent crime, I would say to the
gentleman from Virginia.
The Scott amendment would increase that amount $497.5 million at the
expense of the State prison grant program, which would be eliminated
and which would have provided funds to States to ensure that violent
offenders, including violent juvenile offenders, are locked up.
Last year this Congress passed a significant reform to the State
prison grant program, which the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
pursued, which would ensure that funds would be available to States
that are getting tough on crime and keeping violent criminals locked
up. This program was designed to address the frightening fact that
violent criminals in State prisons serve an average of only 38 percent
of their actual sentence. Convicted murderers are given an average
prison sentence of 20 years in length, but they serve only 8\1/2\
years. And for rape the sentence is 13 years, but the time served is
only 5 years on average.
States are enacting laws that require violent criminals to serve
longer sentences and in some cases at least 85 percent of their
sentences. They deserve the support of this Congress to ensure that
adequate bed space is available to maintain those policies. The State
prison grant program provides that support, and the gentleman's
amendment would take it away completely.
The prison grant program is one of the most effective deterrents to
crime. It provides the assurance that if an individual commits a crime
they will serve time. Without the prison grant program, the result of
increased law enforcement and prosecution will not be real.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Scott amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and also the
author of this law that we passed last year.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to concur in everything that he said.
As much as I respect the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], who is
a member of my subcommittee, and he and I talk a lot about these
issues, I do not agree with this amendment at all. He is robbing Peter
to pay Paul.
The prison grant program we passed, and that the gentleman is
funding, I think very adequately with some $680 million in this bill,
is absolutely essential to stop that revolving door the gentleman just
described, where all too often we get criminals into the system who
commit these violent crimes and they serve only a fraction of their
sentence, then go back out again and commit more violent crimes.
Half of this grant money goes to an incentive program that says,
State, if you pass a law that requires the repeat violent offender to
serve at least 85 percent of his or her sentence, then you will be
eligible to get the prison grant money, this extra incentive grant
money, from the Federal Government to help you build and have the space
to house them, because we want States to move in that direction.
And many are doing that, thank goodness.
I say to my colleagues, when that happens, when they start serving 85
percent of their sentences and we take these violent repeat offenders
and lock them up and throw away the keys, the murder rate and the
violent crime rate in this country is going to go down far more than it
is today because it is these people committing these violent crimes.
The latest statistics show there are an average of 700 violent crimes
per 100,000 in our population every year. Even though we have
marginally seen the violent crime rate go down over the last 3 or 4
years, only marginally, that 700 per 100,000 per year is way too high.
It is far greater than it was 30 years
[[Page H8201]]
ago when it was 200 violent crimes per every 100,000 of our population.
The primary reason it is so is because of this violent repeat offender
that the special provisions of the prison grant program are designed to
correct.
States should move to require the abolition of parole and to make
those who commit these violent crimes serve most of their sentences,
lock them up, get them off the streets, and crime would inevitably be
less.
With all due respect, I cannot support the analysis that Mr. Scott
has made in support of his amendment. He wants to gut the truth in
sentencing grant program that is in the chairman's bill. I am all for
helping the juvenile justice system along. In fact, I am working on an
authorization bill now to complement the chairman's bill here today,
but, by golly, we cannot do it if we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
We have to do both things. We cannot do just one. What Mr. Scott
would do would be to eliminate the incarceration of these violent
repeat offenders, or the money for that, and that is just not right,
and I join the chairman in opposing this amendment, and I thank him for
yielding.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his leadership in this area. He is the author of the Truth in
Sentencing Act, which we passed in this bill last year and which is the
parent of the State prison grant program. It is perfect because it
takes Federal dollars and says to each State if they will jail their
violent criminals up to 85 percent of the sentence they get, we will
give them money with which to build prisons and buy the beds to keep
them in jail. We will pay the bill.
That is an effective way to get at violent crime, and I think it is
going to have tremendous payoff down the way.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
it is indeed happening that way. My State of Florida has recently
changed their laws, and States all over the country are doing this.
This would be absolutely the wrong time to cut the legs out from under
this program. States are making that move.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that the Scott
amendment, taking a half billion dollars out of this program, is money
all of our States would no longer have available to them. We could not
fund the Truth in Sentencing Act that the Congress passed last year if
this amendment passes.
No. 2, we have already got $180 million plus in our bill for juvenile
justice programs. That is $30.5 million more than President Clinton
requested. And so there is plenty of money in this bill available for
juvenile justice programs that the gentleman from Virginia wants and
that we all want.
I just do not want the gentleman to gut a very effective violent
crime fighting program that we fund in this bill, that will get the
violent criminals, adults as well as juveniles, around the country, off
the streets. I urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of comments. The
gentleman from Kentucky has indicated the States will not get the
money. The money will go back to the States. The money will be spent.
Instead of prisons, it will be spent on juvenile justice prevention.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chair of the
Subcommittee on Crime, has done an outstanding job in having hearings
across the country, and I want to congratulate him for the unique
hearings that he has had. He has had several attorneys general, heads
of crime agencies within the States come to testify about what needs to
be done, and I want to congratulate him for having those open hearings.
The gentleman is exactly right, the purpose of the amendment is to
gut the truth in sentencing provision. I like to call it not the truth
in sentencing but the half truth in sentencing provision, because when
we have truth in sentencing, the half truth is we cannot let people out
early, but the whole truth is we cannot hold people longer either.
The most heinous violent criminals are held by denying parole time
after time after time. When everybody gets the average sentence, they
are all let out at the same time: the heinous criminals, those that we
know are going to be recidivist and those that are low risk all get out
at the same time.
I would say that the gentleman from Kentucky said that there is
plenty of ``macho man'' in this bill, and that is the point. It is all
``macho'' but no effect. This amendment will not delete the prison
construction. If they are serving 38 percent of the time now, if this
amendment passes or fails, they will serve 38 percent later. There is
just not enough money in this amendment to make any difference in State
prison construction.
We talk about the revolving door and people unaccountable. The fact
is that 10 percent of young African-American males are in jail today,
more in jail than in college. We need to do something about crime.
Waiting for incarceration to make a difference means we have to wait
for the crime to be committed, wait for people to get caught,
prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, serve the time they are to serve and
then add some more time.
{time} 1915
This amendment would deal with them before they commit the crime in
the first place. All of the studies show that it is a much more
effective way of dealing with crime than waiting for it to occur. I
hope that we will adopt the amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am today in support of the
Scott Amendment. There is an old adage--an ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure.
Statistics indicate its costs around $30,000 a year to house an
inmate in a correctional facility. Those same statistics show that it
costs $3,000 a year to educate a child. We need to invest in our
children before they become adversely involved in our criminal justice
system rather than after.
The very fact that a legislative body, such as this one, would cut
funding for education, and then block grant funds to the States to
build more prisons flies in the face of good, moral, judgment and sound
fiscal management.
The at-risk youth programs of the Department of Justice, provide
communities with the means to involve those at-risk youth in tutoring
and mentoring programs for schools in high crime communities and summer
recreational programs for at-risk youth before they have the misfortune
of stumbling into a criminal justice system that is incapable of
rehabilitating them.
The Scott amendment takes a commonsense, front-end-solution approach
to providing programs for our Nation's youth. I urge my colleagues to
support the Scott amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The questions is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
weed and seed program fund
For necessary expenses, including salaries and related
expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to
implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, $28,500,000
which shall be derived from discretionary grants provided
under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Programs, to remain available until
expended for intergovernmental agreement, including grants,
cooperative agreements, and contracts, with State and local
law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of violent crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and
Seed'' designated communities, and for either reimbursements
or transfers to appropriation accounts of the Department of
Justice and other Federal agencies which shall be specified
by the Attorney General to execute the ``Weed and Seed''
program strategy: Provided, That funds designated by Congress
through language for other Department of Justice
appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed'' program
activities shall be mandated and executed by the Attorney
General through the Executive Office for Weed and Seed:
Provided further, That the Attorney General may direct the
use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in
support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after
the Attorney General notifies the Communities on
[[Page H8202]]
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
Community Oriented Policing Services
violent crime reduction programs
For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 (``the 1994
Act'') (including administrative costs), $14,400,000,000, to
remain available until expended, which shall be derived from
the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for Public Safety and
Community Policing Grants pursuant to title I of the 1994
Act: Provided, That of this amount, $10,000,000 shall be
available for programs of Police Corps education, training
and service as set forth in sections 200101-200113 of the
1994 Act: Provided further, That of this amount, $71,000,000
shall be transferred to the Drug Enforcement Administration
for the purpose of providing State and local police officers
with equipment, conveyances, overtime and other expenses
associated with their participation on drug task forces:
Provided further, That of this amount, $30,500,000 shall be
for additional grants authorized by part B of title II of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as
amended, to remain available until expended, for the purpose
of providing additional formula grants under part B, for
innovative local law enforcement and community policing
programs to States that provide assurances to the
Administrator that the State has in effect (or will have in
effect not later than 1 year after date of application)
policies and programs, that ensure that juveniles who commit
an act after attaining 14 years of age, that would be a
serious violent crime if committed by an adult, are treated
as adults for purpose of prosecution: Provided further, That
not to exceed 130 permanent positions and 130 full-time
equivalent workyears and $14,602,000 shall be expended for
program management and administration.
juvenile justice programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and
expenses in connection therewith to be transferred to and
merged with the appropriations for Justice Assistance,
$145,000,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized by section 299 of part I of title II and section
506 of title V of the Act, as amended by Public Law 102-586,
of which (1) $100,000,000 shall be available for expenses
authorized by parts A, B, and C of title II of the Act; (2)
$11,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by
sections 281 and 282 of part D of title II of the Act for
prevention and treatment programs relating to juvenile gangs;
(3) $10,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by
section 285 of part E of title II of the Act; (4) $4,000,000
shall be available for expenses authorized by part G of title
II of the Act for juvenile mentoring programs; and (5)
$20,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by
title V of the Act for incentive grants for local delinquency
prevention programs: Provided, That upon the enactment of
reauthorization legislation for Juvenile Justice Programs
under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974, as amended, funding provided in this Act shall from
that date be subject to the provisions of that legislation
and any provisions in this Act that are inconsistent with
that legislation shall no longer have effect.
In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements,
and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990, as amended, $4,500,000, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by sections 214B of the Act.
public safety officers benefits
For payments authorized by part L of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796),
as amended, such sums as are necessary, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law
100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340), and, in addition, $2,200,000,
to remain available until expended, for payments as
authorized by section 1201(b) of said Act.
general provisions--department of justice
Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $45,000 from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall
be available to the Attorney General for official reception
and representation expenses in accordance with distributions,
procedures, and regulations established by the Attorney
General.
Sec. 102. Authorities contained in the Department of
Justice Appropriation authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1980
(Pub. L. 96-132, 93 Stat. 1040 (1979)), as amended, shall
remain in effect until the termination date of this Act or
until the effective date of a Department of Justice
Appropriation Authorization Act, whichever is earlier.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That
should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any persons to perform, or
facilitate in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to establish and publicize a program under which
publicly-advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which
shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in
sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code:
Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a
maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal
approval of the President or the Attorney General and such
approval may not be delegated.
Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Justice in this Act, including those derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 108. Section 524(c)(8)(E) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking the year in the date therein
contained and replacing the same with ``1996''.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have Members who have amendments that have been
filed in this portion of the bill that are not the floor at the moment,
having been called to other duties. I hope that they would be allowed
to offer their amendments at the appropriate time.
The CHAIRMAN. This may be the appropriate time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I know that. I am trying to do a little
song and dance while we wait for them to get to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair could inform the Members what the
procedure is for the evening. The Chair has been rolling votes. I would
assume that at some point in time we will be resuming the votes and
taking those rollcalls that have been reserved; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. At some point the Committee will resume those
proceeding as unfinished business
Parliamentary inquiry
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ROGERS. Can the Chair inform the Members how late the session
will be going this evening?
The CHAIRMAN. No, the Chair cannot.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 109. (a) Section 1930(a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended in paragraph (6), by striking everything
after ``total less than $15,000;'' and inserting in lieu
thereof: ``$500 for each quarter in which disbursements total
$15,000 or more but less than $75,000; $750 for each quarter
in which disbursements total $75,000 or more but less than
$150,000; $1,250 for each quarter in which disbursements
total $150,000 or more but less than $225,000; $1,500 for
each quarter in which disbursements total $225,000 or more
but less than $300,000; $3,750 for each quarter in which
disbursements total $300,000 or more but less than
$1,000,000; $5,000 for each quarter in which disbursements
total $1,000,000 or more but less than $2,000,000; $7,500 for
each quarter in which disbursements total $2,000,000 or more
but less than $3,000,000; $8,000 for each quarter in which
disbursements total $3,000,000 or more but less than
$5,000,000; $10,000 for each quarter in which disbursements
total $5,000,000 or more. The fee shall be payable on the
last day of the calendar month following the calendar quarter
for which the fee is owed.''.
(b) Section 589a of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 589a. United States Trustee System Fund
``(a) There is hereby established in the Treasury of the
United States a special fund to be known as the `United
States Trustee System Fund' (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the `Fund'). Monies in the Fund shall be
available to the Attorney General without fiscal year
limitation in such amounts as may be specified in
appropriations Acts for the following purposes in connection
with the operations of United States trustees--
``(1) salaries and related employee benefits;
``(2) travel and transportation;
``(3) rental of space;
``(4) communication, utilities, and miscellaneous computer
charges;
[[Page H8203]]
``(5) security investigations and audits;
``(6) supplies, books, and other materials for legal
research;
``(7) furniture and equipment;
``(8) miscellaneous services, including those obtained by
contract; and
``(9) printing.
``(b) For the purpose of recovering the cost of services of
the United States Trustee System, there shall be deposited as
offsetting collections to the appropriation `United States
Trustee System Fund', to remain available until expended, the
following--
``(1) 23.08 percent of the fees collected under section
1930(a)(1) of this title;
``(2) one-half of the fees collected under section
1930(a)(3) of this title;
``(3) one-half of the fees collected under section
1930(a)(4) of this title;
``(4) one-half of the fees collected under section
1930(a)(5) of this title;
``(5) 100 percent of the fees collected under section
1930(a)(6) of this title;
``(6) three-fourths of the fees collected under the last
sentence of section 1930(a) of this title;
``(7) the compensation of trustees received under section
330(d) of title 11 by the clerks of the bankruptcy courts;
and
``(8) excess fees collected under section 586(e)(2) of this
title.
``(c) Amounts in the Fund which are not currently needed
for the purposes specified in subsection (a) shall be kept on
deposit or invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the
United States.
``(d) The Attorney General shall transmit to the Congress,
not later than 120 days after the end of each fiscal year, a
detailed report on the amounts deposited in the Fund and a
description of expenditures made under this section.
``(e) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund
for any fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to
supplement amounts deposited under subsection (b) for the
purposes specified in subsection (a).''.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this
Act, the amendments to 28 U.S.C. 589a made by subsection (b)
of this section shall take effect upon enactment of this Act.
Sec. 110. Public Law 103-414 (108 Stat. 4279) is amended by
inserting at its conclusion a new title IV, as follows:
``TITLE IV--TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER COMPLIANCE PAYMENTS
``SEC. 401. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER
COMPLIANCE FUND.
``(a) Establishment of Fund.--There is hereby established
in the United States Treasury a fund to be known as the
Department of Justice Telecommunications Carrier Compliance
Fund (hereafter referred to as `the Fund'), which shall be
available without fiscal year limitation to the Attorney
General for making payments to telecommunications carriers,
equipment manufacturers, and providers of telecommunications
support services pursuant to section 109 of this Act.
``(b) Deposits to the Fund.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any agency of the United States with law
enforcement or intelligence responsibilities may deposit as
offsetting collections to the Fund any unobligated balances
that are available until expended, upon compliance with any
Congressional notification requirements for reprogrammings of
funds applicable to the appropriation from which the deposit
is to be made.
``(c) Termination.--
``(1) The Attorney General may terminate the Fund at such
time as the Attorney General determines that the Fund is no
longer necessary.
``(2) Any balance in the Fund at the time of its
termination shall be deposited in the General Fund of the
Treasury.
``(3) A decision of the Attorney General to terminate the
Fund shall not be subject to judicial review.
``(d) Availability of Funds for Expenditure.--Funds shall
only be available for obligation after submission of an
implementation plan as set forth in subsection (e), to the
Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of both the
House of Representatives and the Senate and shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of
the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997,
and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
``(e) Implementation Plan.--The implementation plan shall
include:
``(1) law enforcement assistance capability features
including an explanation of how proposed interface and
assistance capability requirements exceed or differ from the
law enforcement assistance currently provided by carriers;
``(2) the actual and maximum number of simultaneous
surveillances/intercepts that law enforcement agencies expect
to perform (capacity requirements), as well as the
``historical baseline electronic surveillance activity'' on
which the proposed capacity requirements are based;
``(3) a detailed county by county listing of proposed
actual and maximum capacity requirements;
``(4) the proposed network switch and other assistance
capability features requested by law enforcement that would
be required to be installed by telecommunications carriers;
``(5) a complete estimate of the full costs of development
and deployment of the assistance capability features, the
full costs of the proposed actual and maximum capacities
requested by law enforcement, the full cost of training
telecommunications carrier personnel in the use of such
capabilities and capacities, and to what extent funding of
$500,000,000 will be sufficient to fully reimburse
telecommunications carriers for the reasonable cost of
compliance with this Act; and
``(6) a complete estimate of the full and reasonable costs
associated with the modification to be performed by
telecommunications carriers of their network equipment and
facilities installed or deployed after January 1, 1995, which
are not proposed for reimbursement.
``(f) Annual Report to the Congress.--The Attorney General
shall submit to the Congress each year a report specifically
detailing all deposits and expenditures made pursuant to his
Act in each fiscal year. This report shall be submitted to
each member of the Committees on the Judiciary and
Appropriations of both the House of Representatives and the
Senate, and to the Speaker and minority leader of the House
of Representatives and to the majority and minority leaders
of the Senate, no later than 60 days after the end of each
fiscal year.''
amendment offered by mr. barr of georgia
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia: Page 41,
beginning on line 24, strike ``Funds'' and everything that
follows through ``to the Committees'' on page 42, line 1, and
insert the following: ``Funds shall not be available for
obligation unless an implementation plan as set forth in
subsection (e) is submitted to each member of the
Committees''.
Page 42, line 3 strike ``and shall'' and insert ``and the
Congress does not, within the 60 days after the date of such
submission, by law block or prevent the obligation of such
funds. Such funds shall''.
Page 42, line 8, insert before the period the following:
``and this section''.
Mr. BARR of Georgia [during the reading]. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first of all thank
both the chairman and the ranking member and members on both sides of
the aisle that have worked on this amendment, which I believe is
acceptable to both sides and which simply is really, Mr. Chairman, more
in the nature of a perfecting amendment than anything else.
It simply addresses, Mr. Chairman, language which would apply to
title IV, the telecommunications carrier compliance payments, which has
to do, Mr. Chairman, with CALEA, the Compliance with Law Enforcement
Act, Communications Assistance Law Enforcement Act which was passed by
this body in the last Congress.
The language, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment proposes, which we
have worked out and which I again, Mr. Chairman, believe is acceptable
to both sides, simply elaborates on language currently contained in
subsection (d) of this provision of this section.
It simply makes very clear that the implementation plan for the fund
that would be set up in order to fund the CALEA, C-A-L-E-A, Mr.
Chairman, the fund shall not be made available until the implementation
plan, Mr. Chairman, has been very clearly laid out to the Congress of
the United States, not only generally speaking but to the appropriate
committees and committee memberships so that these committees, namely
the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations, Mr.
Chairman, will have a chance to review it and ensure that the
provisions that the Department of Justice is seeking to fund, the
funding mechanism that it is seeking to set up and the funds that would
thereafter be used according to the terms of the language that is
currently in this legislation, really set forth the parameters within
which the companies, the telecommunications carriers and equipment
manufacturers know that they must operate.
It lays out for the people of the United States through their
representatives on the appropriate committees of the Congress the
general scope of what the Government believes is necessary in order to
effectuate the purposes already set forward in CALEA and which would be
carried out pursuant to this fund.
The legislation simply provides a 60-day period within which the
Congress shall be able to consider the implementation plan and after,
therefore, if no
[[Page H8204]]
objections are raised, then it would go into effect and the Department
of Justice would be able to move forward with the plan.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of this committee
and the subcommittee.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I compliment the gentleman for his perseverance on this issue. He
knows this issue better than anyone else does. He has been very helpful
in constructing the portions of the bill that relate to digital
telephony. We have no objection to the amendment that he has offered.
In fact, we commend him for it. We urge its adoption.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have just seen this language. Will the
gentleman explain the purpose of this language? Why do you want to do
this?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the language is to
clarify that the implementation plan which would set out the parameter
within which the funds under CALEA would be used shall be made
specifically available to the membership of the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations, and that the Congress
would have 60 days within which to raise any objection to it. If within
those 60 days the Congress does not act, then the implementation plan,
again as laid out already in the legislation, would go into effect and
the funds would be available to implement the plan.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
what is the gentleman wanting to achieve by this?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, really the only thing that this
amendment provides over and above the existing language of the
legislation is somewhat greater accountability and specificity in the
plan that would be set forward, and to make sure that it is
specifically available to Members of the Congress so that they have
full opportunity to review it, raise any questions about it, consult
with the FBI and the DOJ. If there are any questions that the Members
of Congress, particularly on these two committees which have very clear
interest, the Committee on the Judiciary, substantively, and the
Committee on Appropriations, because of the large amount of funding
that would go into this fund, that they have full and fair opportunity
to review it.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to adopt this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 1997''.
amendment offered by ms. molinari
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Molinari: In title I, at the end
of the item relating to ``General Provisions--Department of
Justice'', insert the following new section:
Sec. . It is the sense of the Congress that the Drug
Enforcement Administration, together with other appropriate
Federal agencies, should take such actions as may be
necessary to end the illegal importation into the United
States of Rohypnol (flunitrazepam), a drug frequently
distributed with the intent to facilitate sexual assault and
rape.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just a very
straightforward sense-of-Congress resolution that the Drug Enforcement
Agency and other Federal agencies should take whatever action necessary
to end the illegal importation of a drug called Rohypnol.
Today Congress acknowledges a drug problem that strikes its victims
twice, by rendering them unconscious--for as much as 24 hours--allowing
their attacker to rape and brutalize them. Second, the victim is so
impaired that they cannot even remember anything about the attack. They
are defenseless during the attack and after the attack they are equally
as helpless to prosecute their attacker.
The drug called Rohypnol, also known as roofies, roachies, or Mexican
Valium, is not manufactured or sold in the United States, but is very
available. So available that in a recent story by a national news
program more than 30 women were raped in Ft. Lauderdale after this drug
was slipped into their drink. Of course, this only accounts for
reported rapes where a toxicology study was performed. There might be
many others and we do not know. But what we do know is that this drug,
which may not be sold or manufactured in the United States, is a
serious threat to women.
The drug is tasteless, odorless, and colorless, so its victims never
know what has happened until after it's too late. In addition, it is 10
times more powerful than Valium.
This sense-of-Congress resolution is a small, but first step toward
combating the importation and dissemination of Rohypnol. It says to all
Americans, including any potential users, the government treats this
drug as a serious threat to the safety of women, and will take any
necessary actions to prevent its use. We recognize that Rohypnol is
more than just a strong sleeping pill--it's a weapon used to commit
rape.
Rape is just one use of Rohypnol. On the street, it is combined with
drugs such as cocaine and heroin which induce a quick high. The user
then ingests Rohypnol to bring them down. Drug addicts do not need
another drug to combat their addiction, they need treatment and where
applicable, incarceration.
This appropriations bill directs $197.5 million for the Violence
Against Women Act--a 12-percent increase from last year and nearly a
700-percent increase from the previous Congress. I am proud to be one
of the original supporters of this initiative, and I am proud to say
that this year's total funding far exceeds any prior appropriation--
Chairmen Livingston, Rogers, and Porter are to be commended for their
hard work. But a new problem is on the horizon and moving quickly
toward us. We must stand up now, recognize the threat is real, and do
all that we can do to keep it out and prosecute those who bring it into
our country for criminal purposes.
Mr. Chairman, let me also conclude by commending the gentleman from
New York, Chairman Solomon, who has taken the initiative to combat this
drug by increasing the penalties for someone who uses this drug or any
other controlled substance in the commission of a rape or sexual
battery.
Again, in closing, I urge my colleagues to adopt this very important
small step toward sending a sense of Congress to Federal agencies that
something must be done and something must be done quickly.
{time} 1930
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MOLINARI. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Let me commend the gentlewoman for bringing this matter
to the attention of the Congress, a matter of great importance to so
many around our country, and the gentlewoman again, as she has in the
past, has put her finger on a very severe problem in this country, and
I hope that her efforts will be rewarded.
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for
using his leadership on this committee and his leadership in Congress
to make sure that when areas of grave concern are brought to his
attention that he acts immediately and swiftly, and without that
immediate action none of these problems would be resolved, nevertheless
brought to the public's attention.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from New York.
It is so terribly important.
My colleagues, there is something happening in this country for the
first time. As my colleagues know, for years we have been haunted with
this serious problem of drug abuse, illegal drug abuse in this country,
but primarily in the past it has only affected those people that were
bringing it on themselves, those people using the drugs.
[[Page H8205]]
Today an entire new generation of young women and children are being
threatened now with a drug that is being used as a weapon against them.
It is a terrible thing.
I have introduced legislation, and on Thursday at 1 o'clock we will
be holding a press conference, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Molinari] and myself and a number of others who sponsor this
legislation, concerning legislation we are introducing mandating severe
penalties for anyone, anyone convicted of using controlled substances,
not just this terrible drug Rohypnol, but any controlled substance,
whether legal or illegal, for using that as weapon to commit rape or
even for the intent of committing rape. And it includes, again, the
drug rohypnol. For the first time, this drug is being used as a weapon
against unsuspecting women and children.
Let me just tell my colleagues how bad this is. As my colleagues
know, illegal drug use in this country is increasing. Fifty percent
among young adults in the last 4 years. But let me tell my colleagues
what is happening even worse. For 12- and 13-year-olds in this country,
the increase in marijuana use alone has gone up 137 percent. Those are
12- and 13-year-olds. For the ages 14 and 15, it has increased 200
percent in marijuana use and other illegal drugs. That is how serious
it is.
And, as my colleagues know, illegal drug use causes 75 percent of all
of the violent crime against women and children in this country today,
and that has been bad enough, but now these unsuspecting young
children, young kids 12, 13, 14, 15 years old, along with young adult
women are first plied with alcohol, and then marijuana, and then they
have this drug like Rohypnol slipped into a drink. It renders them
unconscious, but awake, and they have to lie there and helplessly watch
what is happening to them. Last week I testified before Senator
Coverdell and his subcommittee on this issue, and I heard firsthand
testimony about the terrible things that have happened to these young
women. It was absolutely heartrending.
Mr. Chairman, to help put an end to these terrible atrocities we are
introducing legislation requiring a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence
for anyone who is convicted of committing rape while using these kinds
of controlled substances as a weapon.
Mr. Chairman, that has got to stop and that is exactly what my
legislation will do. For the first conviction, they get 20 years with
no parole, 20 years mandatory sentence, and if they are convicted the
second time, it is life imprisonment.
This amendment is supported by Senator Coverdell and Senator Biden
over in the other body, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
We need to pass this legislation, and we need to do it now to stop this
new generation of victims from taking place.
So I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment. It is a great
amendment, and we look forward to the press conference that we will
hold on the revision of our legislation that is going to be introduced
on Thursday.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in strong support of the Molinari-Solomon amendment.
We have heard in this Chamber tonight talk about terrorism. We have
heard talk about crime prevention in the communities as opposed to
other alternatives. Well, we have to talk about both of those issues
when we refer to this legislation.
This is a form of domestic terrorism. It is terrorism when people are
held at bay, held at bay as young females in middle school and high
school and in college, held at bay because they go out on a date, and
the first thing they know is they do not know what is going on. But the
next morning they do know, but they cannot remember fully because of
this powerful drug.
What is crime prevention? Sure, people say it is midnight basketball.
I say it is strong law that is crime prevention. We have to make a
strong statement on this. Those sanctions of 20 years, that is not
excessive. We have to bring fear into the hearts of the criminals and
fear in the hearts of the potential criminals.
Every day we are creating victims, and that is what we have to keep
in mind. We have to be concerned about the victims in this country and
those victims that are helpless, those victims that are vulnerable,
those children, those teenagers, the elderly, we have to take care of
that. We are the ones that make law across these States.
This drug Rohypnol is a powerful tranquilizer known as the ``date
rape drug'' because it is used by rapists to incapacitate their
victims. This drug is illegal in the United States, yet it comes to
here in this country from Mexico and other Latin American States. It is
10 times more potent than Valium, and it is odorless, colorless and
tasteless.
I commend the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for their leadership in this
important issue. I look forward to working together with them in this
legislation.
Federal law enforcement agencies need to move quickly and take strong
action to prevent the illegal importation of this drug. There is an
ever increasing number of unsuspecting women being victimized by rape,
by criminals who use this powerful sedative. The drug enforcement
agency, the DEA, has reported that Rohypnol has become a problem in 26
Southeastern and Southwestern States. This drug has been growing in
popularity among young people because of its low cost. There are
growing numbers of middle school, high school, and college students
abusing this drug for many reasons. If we fail to act now, I fear that
this drug will continue to spread and place a larger number of women in
danger.
Again I would like to commend the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Molinari] and my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
for their efforts on this behalf, and I urge my colleagues to vote for
this amendment.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of Ms. Molinari's
amendment affirming the opposition of this Congress to the pernicious
drug commonly known as roofies or the rape drug. In my district, Ft.
Lauderdale, already more than 30 women have been raped after this drug
was slipped into their drink. Ten times more powerful than Valium, this
colorless, odorless, and tasteless depressant has the effect of
rendering an unknowing victim susceptible to suggestion and thus
vulnerable to sexual assault or rape. Because amnesia is one of roofies
major side effects, victims may have the frightening experience of not
being able to completely recall what happened to them.
Roofies are illegally trafficked in from Mexico and Colombia and are
quickly becoming a critical problem in the Southern States, from
California all the way to Florida. Particularly in my own State of
Florida, high school students not realizing the addictive nature and
adverse side effects of the drug are buying the widely available
roofies on the streets for as little as $2.50.
Mr. Speaker, we must take a stand against the illegal importation of
roofies. We must not continue to let our women and teenage children be
so appallingly vulnerable to sexual assault. I urge you to please
support Ms. Molinari's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The amendment is not timely. The Chair is assuming the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] is asking unanimous consent
to return to a previous section.
Ms. NORTON. I am, Mr. Chairman.
May I move to strike the last word then, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I had published an amendment that would
allow an exception to our policy of using Federal funds for abortion
for women who are incarcerated. I ask for that exception because under
no circumstances do these women have access to any personal funds or to
any State and local funds. Even though they were not incarcerated, they
might obtain an abortion through their own jurisdiction. I asked for
this exception because the average annual growth in the Federal prisons
has been significantly greater than in State prisons. Annually it has
been almost 10 percent
[[Page H8206]]
a year, and it is amazing when the Federal sector now outpaces the
State sector where, after all, most of the criminal law is, the
increase in female inmates has significantly outpaced those of male
inmates.
I am talking about voluntary abortions only. I myself am writing a
bill that would make it easier for women in prison to have their
children adopted. Now, with voluntary abortions before this was lifted
during this Congress, there was counseling, there was the right of
staff objections. These are the least responsible parents by the
documented evidence that they are in prison. Theirs are the most
vulnerable offspring, and the story of what happens to both women and
children when the children are born in prison is one of the great
horror stories of America.
Most of these women are in prison because of the use of drugs and
alcohol. More than half committed an offense, the offense for which
they are incarcerated, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and
almost 40 percent were using crack.
The problem was spiraling out of control because of the huge growth
of numbers. The number of inmates in the Federal prison in the last
decade grew by 75 percent. Women grew at twice that rate while only 10
percent of the prison population; their jump was 137 percent.
What I am asking is for an exception comparable to that we have made
for rape or incest. Otherwise what we have here is forced childbirth.
The rate of infection, HIV infection for women in prison, actually
exceeds the rate of infection for men in prison. This is truly an
astonishing development. To be sure, women in prison forfeit their
rights, they forfeit their rights to, every right to which they are
entitled. But they also forfeit their rights to decent prenatal care,
the right to a diet that would nourish the embryo.
Mr. Chairman, we have denied the right of choice to Federal workers
who, after all, have other alternatives, to women in the military who
have other alternatives, but when we deny it here, we act in a barbaric
fashion. We force childbirth on a woman who is incarcerated.
Taxpayers should pay for these abortions for the same reason that
taxpayers must pay for everything else these women get in prison. They
pay for food, they pay for shelter, and we should not have to pay for
that either, but since they are incarcerated we have no choice, and we
should have no choice as well but not to compound the tragedy involved
in their being in prison and pregnant by forcing childbirth on them in
a democratic and humane society.
This is not only the bed they have made to lie in. Far more is at
stake, given the rising number of women who are now in our Federal
prisons. I ask for this exception in the name of humanity.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, abortion on demand is child abuse and in no way can be
construed as humane or compassionate. A child's worth is not determined
by who his or her mother happens to be, and the value of a baby is not
diminished one iota because mom happens to be an inmate.
{time} 1945
As a matter of fact, her God-given value is not diminished, either.
The Norton amendment which would have been offered tonight and will not
be offered because that point in the legislation has passed. This would
have forced taxpayers to subsidize violence against children; in this
case, the child of an inmate.
Mr. Chairman, many Americans are either uninformed or living in a
state of denial on the general issue of abortion, especially as it
relates to the gruesome reality of abortion. Abortion methods include
dismembering innocent children with razor blade tip suction devices or
injections of chemical poisons designed to kill the baby. If the
abortion President, Bill Clinton, has his way, both partial birth
abortions will remain legal and available for taxpayer subsidy as well
as the newest form of baby poison, RU-486.
Mr. Chairman, abortion on demand treats pregnancy as a sexually
transmitted disease. The growing child is viewed as a tumor, as a wart,
a piece of trash to be destroyed. Earlier today my dad underwent some
major surgery to remove cancer from his stomach. Every member of my
family has been deep in prayer all day and over the last week, hoping
that the surgeon removes every vestige of that horrible disease. My
dad's courage--and I just say this parenthetically--his faith in God
throughout all of this has been absolutely inspiring, and he is now in
intensive care.
But the whole ordeal reminds me anew that the role of medicine is to
heal. The role of medicine is to heal and to nurture, to cure a
disease, to excise life-threatening tumors. It is not to destroy
innocent unborn babies as if they were cancer.
Mr. Chairman, if you have ever watched an unborn child's image on an
ultrasound or sonogram screen, you cannot help but be awed by the
miracle of human life, by the preciousness of a child's being, and
moved to pity by the helplessness and vulnerability of that child, by
the fragility of those tiny fingers and toes. To see an unborn child
turning, twisting, kicking and sucking his or her thumb while still in
utero shatters the myth that abortion merely removes tissue or the
products of conception.
Peel away the euphemisms that sanitize abortion and the cruelty to
children, and yes, the cruelty to their mothers as well, becomes
readily apparent to anyone with an open mind. The entire smoke screen
of choice turns the baby into property, a thing, a commodity, and not a
someone. The whole rhetoric of choice dehumanizes our brothers and
sisters in the womb and puts them in the same category as cars, TV
sets, stereos, and toasters. The whole rhetoric of choice reduces
unborn babies to objects. The feminists had it right: Do not treat
women as objects. The unborn are not objects, either, that can be
killed by chemical injections or by dismemberment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Mother Teresa was right when she said the
greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is a war
against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child. Any country
that accepts abortion, as she goes on to say, is not teaching its
people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why
the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, and she pleads
and says, ``Please don't kill the baby''.
Last year the Norton amendment was voted down by 281 members. It
probably would have had the same fate tonight. It will not be
considered by the House because of the lateness in arriving, but just
let me say this amendment and others like that use taxpayer funds to
subsidize the killing of unborn babies always ought to be defeated.
announcement by the chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to point out to the membership that
there is no amendment pending at this time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] be allowed to
present her amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a prediction. When historians write
books on the Gingrich Congress, they are going to write chapter upon
chapter about the new majority's assault on reproductive choice.
In the first session of the Gingrich Congress, the House of
Representatives voted 21 times to compromise a woman's right to choose;
21 votes to undermine a constitutionally guaranteed right, in just 1
year.
This is a new appropriations season and the march continues. But this
time the anti-choice forces are making sure that not only will they
maintain what they gained last year, but they want to expand on every
one of their gains, including prohibition of abortion services in
Federal prisons.
There are really two main reasons why passage of the amendment of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] was important.
First, this is a pro-choice vote. If Members say they are pro-choice,
how can they in good conscience not vote for the Norton amendment, an
amendment which affirms reproductive choice for women in prison?
[[Page H8207]]
I know that speaking on behalf of women in prison may be unpopular.
Obviously these are women who have committed crimes. They are serving
their punishment. They are incarcerated. But the Norton amendment is
not only about women in prison, it is about fundamental protection for
Roe versus Wade. If Members are truly pro-choice, then they cannot
support the language in this bill, language that will make the right to
choose ring hollow for one more group of American women.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the women who need
abortion services in prison. Many women prisoners are victims of
physical and sexual abuse. In fact, many of them may have had that
drug, that date rape drug that the gentleman was referring to in the
last amendment. These women have almost no access to prenatal care.
They are isolated from family and friends and they face almost certain
loss of custody of their child once the child is born. To require that
imprisoned women bring unwanted children into wretched circumstances is
wrong because we are not considering who will support these children
once they are born, wrong because women in prison are not able to care
for these children, wrong because denying women in prison abortion
services undermines the fundamental principle of reproductive choice.
I urge all of my colleagues to consider the Norton amendment, to pay
attention to it, to accept the issue as an affirmation of the right to
choose because, Mr. Chairman, it is the right thing to do.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] be allowed to
offer her amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Colorado?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. ROGERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, what is pending before the body?
The CHAIRMAN. There is an amendment pending before the Committee at
this point.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may we be able to move on and do pending
business?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair suggested, a couple of speakers previous to
this, that that would be a good idea. The Chair will recognize the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], if recognition is sought.
After that the Chair will intend to recognize the gentleman from
Florida for the purposes of his colloquy.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, how sad I am that now for the third time we have seen
Members on this floor denying the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia the right to offer her amendment. I think this Gingrich
Congress is going to go down as one of the most anti-women Congresses
we have ever seen.
The gentlewoman was in the dining room trying to pay her bill before
she ran up here. Is that a crime? My guess is if she were a guy, they
would allow this to happen. But the gentlewoman sits down there trying
to pay her bill and please, sometimes the service is not the fastest
downstairs, because she is a very honorable woman, and she gets up here
and everybody goes, ha, ha, ha, you are just 2 seconds too late. That
is it. Have a nice day.
What is the consequence? The consequence is that women in prison will
not be allowed to have abortions. Let me tell the Members, women in
prison very often have been the subject of abuse. They could be drug
victims, they could be HIV-positive, they could have the same kind of
physical problems that women outside of prison have.
I do not know how to break it to you guys, but pregnancy is not
necessarily a 9-month cruise. You do not just lay around the swimming
pool eating bonbons. This could be a physically life-threatening
situation. But to not even allow it in the cases of rape and incest,
and to be so gleeful, and to have now denied for the third time the
gentlewoman's right to come forward and offer this amendment in this
chaotic situation where we are bundling things and moving things and
all sorts of things, makes me really very sad.
I have to say, shame, shame on this body. This is unbelievable. I
would never stand up and do this to another Member. We talk about how
uncivilized this place is. This is the ultimate of how uncivilized we
have become, that we think everybody has to sit here, and I sat here
for 3 hours, for 3 hours, they kept saying, your amendment is up any
minute, your amendment is up any minute. The gentlewoman sat here with
me, because she was very active on our amendment, to try and make sure
that the EEOC was at least staffed up to this year's level because they
are so far behind.
What we continue to say around here is rights are okay for the men,
but for women we say we are for rights but we are not interested in
remedies. Women have to be here 24 hours a day because if they miss one
glitch, we cannot wait to roll over them like a tank.
So I really want the record to show that three times tonight we have
stood up for an issue that nobody wants to particularly stand up for:
women in prison. But we have said, why are we going to federally
mandate motherhood to women in prison no matter what the circumstances,
no matter what her physical circumstance, no matter whether she was the
subject of incest or drugs or rape; no matter what, we have now
federally mandated motherhood for that women?
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I do want the Record to show that the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] was on her feet and I was on
my feet, and I believe the chairman believed that he could come back to
me, because I motioned to the chairman that I was here as the last
item, and I am talking about the Speaker now, as the last item in
Justice, and the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] was called
on.
If I had been called on this, objection to my even offering my
amendment could have been raised. I do not think it was my error, I
think it was the error of the Speaker.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I am so glad the gentlewoman said that, Mr. Chairman.
I was with the gentlewoman having dinner downstairs. I heard her say,
have the cloakroom call me. She had staff on alert. She had the phones
going so she could be called up here the moment she was to be here.
That is why I was stunned to walk on this floor and find out that this
had happened.
I just want to say to people who continue to think it is real cute to
object to her being able to bring this up: This is wrong. This is how
women in this body are treated by the other Members. We are not equal.
You would not do this to male colleagues, and you bloody well know it,
and you would not do it to issues that dealt with male citizens, and
you bloody well know it.
I think it is really very sad that you think it is so cute to
continue to object when you have now done it three times, three times,
to the gentlewoman, and she now has stated she was here, and you
continue to roll over her. I do not know what else we can do. We wear
bright colors. We hope you can see us. We know there are not many of
us. But this is, indeed, a very sad night.
announcement by the chairman
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Chair would simply point out that throughout the
process of this bill the bill has been read section by section. That
process has not changed unless there has been an unanimous-consent
request to go to a specific point in the bill, and that unanimous-
consent request has been agreed to by both sides.
The Chair has attempted to be very fair to every Member of both
sides, and will continue to do so.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment at the desk in title I. The reason
that I was offering this amendment is to increase the funds available
in the missing children's program account by $2.417 million, and
reducing the State Department's internal organizations and conferences
by the same amount.
[[Page H8208]]
I was seeking this shifting of funds to establish the Jimmy Ryce Law
Enforcement Training Center, which will launch the most comprehensive
intensive training program on missing and exploited children in
American history, touching every State in 18 months.
This very targeted initiative is undertaken in the memory of Jimmy
Ryce, a 9-year-old boy from my district who was abducted sodomized, and
killed by a sexual predator last September. Jimmy's parents, Donna and
Horton Ryce, poured their hearts and souls into their child's
investigation. Some of the most frustrating, heart-wrenching moments
for the Ryces came from a lack of resources coordination between
national and local law enforcement.
In a letter the Ryces wrote to every Member of Congress this winter,
they explained it this way:
During the 3 months we looked for Jimmy, we discovered that
well-intentioned law enforcement officers spent a lot of the
critical first days and weeks to figure out what would be
done and what resources outside the local community were
available to help.
In working with the Ryce family, the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, the Justice Department, and members of the South
Florida delegation, we developed a coordinated plan to provide hands-on
training for State and local law enforcement on how best to use
national resources.
{time} 2000
This money will be channeled to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, the FBI's National Crime Information Center and
Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit, the Morgan P. Hardiman Task
Force on Missing and Exploited Children, and the Office on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention who will work in partnership to
create a single, massive, targeted national training program in 1997
and 1998.
Over the last several decades, Congress has made it a national
priority to help States in the safe recovery of endangered children.
But until the Federal Government equips law enforcement with the tools
necessary to understand and utilize these national resources, we will
continue to undermine the Federal role in missing children
investigations as well as our chance for the safe recovery of
endangered children.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has gone a long way to bring
to the attention of this body and the subcommittee the problem of
missing and exploited children. As the gentleman has indicated,
Congress has made it a national priority to help States in the safe
recovery of endangered children, and in addition to the $6 million in
funds already provided as an earmark under the justice assistance
account for the missing children's program in this bill, the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has established a Federal
agency task force for Missing and Exploited Children and provides
research, training, and technical assistance to prosecutors, law
enforcement, and child protective services personnel. In addition, the
Criminal Division and the FBI also dedicate significant resources to
this problem, including forensic expertise, violent crime analysis,
behavioral science profiling, trial preparation, and prosecutorial
strategies.
But as the gentleman points out, additional training is still
necessary to ensure that State and local law enforcement authorities
have the ability to respond to this problem using the Federal and
national resources available to them. This can be done through a
combination of additional funding earmarked directly for the Missing
Children Program and increasing efforts within resources already
available to the FBI and the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency.
I will assure the gentleman that I will work during the conference on
this bill to provide additional resources for this important program. I
commend him for his work.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the pledge of the gentleman
from Kentucky. I look forward to working through the conference.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Deutsch was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for increasing
funds for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Mr.
Chairman, 3 years ago, 12-year-old Polly Klaas was kidnapped from her
bedroom in Petaluma, CA. That is where I live, that is part of my
district. She was later found brutally murdered.
While it is too late to help Polly, it is not too late to help others
like her. Since Polly's death, thousands more children have been
abducted and many are still missing. Today we have an opportunity to
help these children by creating a National Training Center for the
Recovery of Missing and Exploited Children, and by improving reporting
procedures that the Deutsch amendment has incorporated in the bill it
will improve the likelihood that these children will be returned safely
to their families.
For Polly, for 9-year-old Jimmy Ryce, it is too late. But for the
thousands of children that are still missing, by our support of this
important amendment we will have made a great difference.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Deutsch amendment to provide
additional funding for a national training initiative to improve the
law enforcement response in cases of missing and exploited children.
As the author of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act,
which became law in 1994, I feel a special burden for children who are
vulnerable to crime.
The Wetterling Act provides for the registration of convicted child
sex offenders and violent sexual predators. The Wetterling Act is a
critical resource for law enforcement for investigating child abduction
and molestation cases. But more needs to be done.
The subject of this amendment, the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement
Training Act, has three crucial components that will provide needed
training to law enforcement in missing and exploited children cases.
Adequate funding is absolutely critical for each of these
initiatives. I understand a promise has been made to fight for
increased funding for this initiative in conference committee, and I am
very grateful to Chairman Rogers for his commitment.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continued progress on making our
communities a safer place for our kids to grow up.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would
like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman regarding the Boys and
Girls Clubs of America.
Mr. Chairman, in the fiscal 1996 appropriation bill, an $11 million
earmark was provided for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for the
establishment of clubs in public housing facilities and other areas of
need in cooperation with State and local law enforcement. This earmark
was in addition to $4.35 million also included under Byrne
discretionary grants.
The Boys and Girls Clubs of America have provided outstanding
leadership in constructively providing and offering meaningful
activities for our young people. If we are going to effectively deal
with the challenges and temptations our young people face, we need to
increasingly depend upon volunteer-based organizations like the Boys
and Girls Clubs of America. Government cannot do it alone.
As I understand the history of this provision, Mr. Chairman, the
intent was for that amount to be the first installment on a multiyear
program.
I am great supporter of Boys and Girls Clubs generally and of this
effort to bring constructive activity to additional young people in
particular.
[[Page H8209]]
While the bill before us today includes $4.35 million for Boys and
Girls Clubs under the Byrne discretionary grant program, it does not
include the additional $11 million earmark under the local law
enforcement block grant. Can the gentleman provide me with assurances
that the conferees on this appropriations bill can provide similar
positive consideration when the other body completes its action?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARCIA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. I appreciate the gentleman's concerns and I assure him
that we will provide similar favorable consideration when we conference
this bill with the Senate, as we provided last year, for additional
funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
Mr. BARCIA. I want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this
issue and especially the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. I thank the
chairman for this additional show of support from the Congress.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
be allowed to go back to section 103 to allow the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] to offer the amendment which she was
prepared to offer, and that debate on the amendment be limited to 10
minutes, 5 minutes for each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman of
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will redesignate section 103.
The Clerk redesignated section 103.
amendment offered by ms. norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Norton: In title I, under
the heading ``General Provisions--Department of Justice'',
strike section 103.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms.
Norton] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
[Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank the body for the courtesies that are being
shown me on the issues I have raised. Above all, I want to indicate to
the Chairman that I did not mean to impugn his fairness. He is a man
whose reputation for fairness is unmarred in this body, and I think
there was honest confusion. Moreover, I should have been here. Even
though I was here before the end of the Justice section, I should have
been here absolutely on time and I apologize to the body that I was not
here. I would hope only that the issue that I raised would not be
sacrificed because of my own tardiness.
I appreciate that my friends on the other side have given me the
opportunity to offer the amendment. Unanimous consent is one of the few
privileges that remains almost sacrosanct in this form in this body. It
is an indication of the civility that remains in this body, although it
is not always apparent. I had never intended to ask for a rollcall
vote.
As has been indicated, I offered this amendment last year. For me it
is a matter of principle just as those who do not support choice find
it a matter of principle. For me it is deeply felt because my own
district is one that is riddled with AIDS, crack, and alcohol, which is
destroying parts not only of my own district but destroying parts of my
own black community. It is devastating women of every race.
Mr. Chairman, I wished simply to offer the amendment in order to
press upon us all that women now have a higher rate of incarceration,
growth rate of incarceration, then men in Federal prisons for the first
time in our history, that AIDS among them is significantly greater even
than AIDS among men, an astonishing fact.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friends on the other side of the
aisle, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. I will
look for opportunities to respond in kind.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just so the record clearly reflects what is happening
here, there were some bogus assertions made earlier that somehow the
pro-life side was trying to box the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia from offering her amendment. Yet the simple fact of the matter
is that we all have to abide by the rules here. There was a clear
window of time here. Mrs. Norton's amendment was clearly in order but
she physically was not here to offer.
Many Members have done that over the years. I've been here for 16
years there have been times that bills have moved so fast that members
have missed their opportunity. When that happens they have sought
unanimous consent to bring it up, sometimes consent is granted,
sometimes not. They did not then claim foul, though. If one knows what
the rules are then its incumbent on a member to get here on time, and
many Members have found this to be the case. But, really, if you're
late getting here, don't turn around and cry foul.
I want the record to show clearly that right now by bringing this
amendment up out of order we are providing special treatment, to the
gentlelady. Last year when the Norton amendment was offered it was
defeated with 281 noes. I think the outcome was very predictable and
would have been predictable if we had indeed had a rollcall vote.
Mr. Chairman, the issue is one of whether or not we will provide
funding in prisons and also for women detained by the Marshals Service
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the INS. This language
that the chairman has wisely put into the bill provides for abortion
funding only in cases of rape or endangerment to the life of the mother
section 103. It is a carryover from last year. I believe it is very
good legislation.
Finally, and I said this earlier in this debate, why do we seek to
proscribe funding for abortion? It is very simple. Many of us have come
to the inescapable conclusion based on all of the available
documentation that is out there that abortion kills babies, plain and
simple. It dismembers babies' bodies. It results in the injection of
chemical poisoning. I hope that a comprehensive debate on abortion
occurs in this country, that this sense of denial that so many
Americans are living with regarding abortion gets stripped away. The
partial-birth abortion ban and the fight that occurred on this floor
regarding that hideous procedure where the so-called doctor stabs the
child's head with a scissors then hooks up a suction device to suck the
brains out of the baby.
Many people began to see abortion not as freedom but cruelty to
children. The other methods are equally gruesome. It just happens in
utero.
You do not see the baby get dismembered unless you do what Dr.
Nathanson did and utilize a sonogram and watch, as he did in his movie
``The Silent Scream,'' a child actually getting picked apart by a loop-
shaped knife which is as sharp as a razor blade.
Abortion kills babies. That is why we fight it. We also believe very
strongly--and I know many women who have had abortions, many women--I
believe that they are exploited, they are victims, they are covictims
with the baby. Our real concern and love and compassion is for them.
Reconciliation for those who have had abortions and efforts to try to
prevent those who might be in a vulnerable situation from going forward
with that irreversible decision to have her baby killed.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad we had this short debate and we are able to
accommodate the gentlewoman from the District. Let me make it very
clear however that had she been here at the right time when the reading
of the appropriate paragraph occurred, she would have easily offered
her amendment. Still, I am glad to be accommodative in providing this
opportunity again for her to offer her amendment.
I urge Members to defeat it and yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H8210]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norton amendment
which would remove the ban on access to abortion services for
incarcerated women, except in cases of rape or life endangerment.
There are currently almost 6,000 women incarcerated in Federal Bureau
of Prisons facilities, the majority--68 percent--of whom are serving
sentences for drug offenses. Most of the women are young, have been
frequently unemployed, and many have been victims of physical or sexual
abuses. According to a recent survey, 6 percent of women in prisons and
4 percent of women in jail were pregnant when admitted. Limited
prenatal care, isolation from family and friends, and the certain loss
of custody of the infant upon birth present unusual circumstances that
exacerbate an already difficult situation if the pregnancy is
unintended.
Because Federal prisons are totally dependent on health care services
provided by the Bureau of Prisons, this ban, in effect, prevents these
women from exercising their constitutional right to abortion. Most
women prisoners were poor when they entered prison, and they do not
earn any meaningful compensation from prison jobs. This ban then closes
off their only opportunity to receive such services, and thereby denies
then their rights under the Constitution.
I urge my colleagues to support the Norton amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norton
amendment.
A member of the new majority says that they plan to outlaw abortion,
``procedure by procedure.'' Today's votes prove they are sticking by
their word.
If the Radical right has its way, passage of the Commerce/State/
Justice bill will include the 30th and 31st votes on choice in this
Congress. The Norton amendment seeks to correct one of these attacks on
American women.
Federal prisoners must rely on the Bureau of Prisons for all of their
health care. So, if this ban passes, it would prevent these women from
seeking needed reproductive health care.
In this bill, the new majority has attacked women who are often poor,
uneducated, isolated, and beaten down. Most women prisoners are victims
of physical or sexual abuse. Most women, if pregnant in prison, became
pregnant from rape or abuse before they entered prison. Most women
prisoners are poor and cannot rely on anyone for financial assistance.
These women already face limited prenatal care, isolation from family
and friends, a bleak future, and the certain loss of custody of the
infant.
The ban on reproductive health services for women in prison closes
off their only opportunity to receive such care, it denies them their
constitutional rights, but most importantly, it denies them their
dignity.
Mr. Chairman, don't intensify an already difficult situation; support
the Norton amendment.
{time} 2015
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES
Trade and Infrastructure Development
RELATED AGENCIES
Office of the United States Trade Representative
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $21,449,000, of which $2,500,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to
exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses.
International Trade Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$40,000,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
operations and administration
For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and
aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad for
periods not exceeding ten years, and expenses of alteration,
repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary
demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of
tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph
of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles
for official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per
vehicle; obtain insurance on official motor vehicles; and
rent tie lines and teletype equipment; $272,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the
provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all
of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities without regard to
section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for the purpose of this
Act, contributions under the provisions of the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act shall include
payment for assessments for services provided as part of
these activities.
Export Administration
operations and administration
For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; rental
of space abroad for periods not exceeding ten years, and
expenses of alteration, repair, or improvement; payment of
tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph
of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by
22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with
special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without
regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law;
$28,604,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f)
and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c))
shall apply in carrying out these activities: Provided
further, That payments and contributions collected and
accepted for materials or services provided as part of such
activities may be retained for use in covering the cost of
such activities, and for providing information to the public
with respect to the export administration and national
security activities of the Department of Commerce and other
export control programs of the United States and other
governments.
Economic Development Administration
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
For grants for economic development assistance as provided
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as
amended, Public Law 91-304, and such laws that were in effect
immediately before September 30, 1982, $328,500,000:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available under this heading may be used directly or
indirectly for attorneys' or consultants' fees in connection
with securing grants and contracts made by the Economic
Development Administration: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Commerce may provide financial assistance for projects to be
located on military installations closed or scheduled for
closure or realignment to grantees eligible for assistance
under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1995,
as amended, without it being required that the grantee have
title or ability to obtain a lease for the property, for the
useful life of the project when in the opinion of the
Secretary of Commerce, such financial assistance is necessary
for the economic development of the area: Provided further,
That the Secretary of Commerce may, as the Secretary
considers appropriate, consult with the Secretary of Defense
regarding the title to land on military installations closed
or scheduled for closure or realignment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hostettler: In title II, strike
the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE--Economic
Development Administration--economic development assistance
programs''.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that the
time be equally divided on the issue.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
[[Page H8211]]
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] will be
recognized for 10 minutes in support of his amendment. Who seeks time
in opposition?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition and I yield
half of that time to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]
and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hostettler].
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to eliminate funding
for the Economic Development Administration.
The Economic Development Administration, known as the EDA, which is a
part of the Department of Commerce, was created in 1965 to assist in
the development of depressed areas an encouraged increased employment
through loans and grants to State and local communities.
Although the original intent sounds reasonable, it is not reality.
EDA money has been used for many projects that have nothing to do with
jobs or economic development for depressed areas.
As we struggle to balance the budget, it is critical that we
terminate funding for EDA, an irreparable program that wastes millions
of precious Federal dollars every year. We simply cannot afford to
continue funding this program.
Throughout the history of the EDA, there can be found any number of
examples of Federal spending for unreasonable projects. The Inspector
General audited a number of EDA projects and found fault with almost
every one.
Some examples of taxpayers dollars being wasted include: $800,000 for
a golf course that washed away, $5,000,000 was awarded in 1976 to an
economic development district that built a cash reserve of almost $2
million and wasted and misused over $1 million; and $850,000 was
awarded in 1987 to help fund a $1 million 3-year industrial park
expansion. Eight years later the project was barely started but
$670,000 of the money had been spent.
The EDA has proven itself to be a failure at meeting its objective.
This program has become a $348 million drain on scarce and valuable
Federal resources. Reform of the program is not the answer. Eliminating
funding is the answer.
If you support eliminating the Department of Commerce, you should
support this amendment. The fact is when EDA was created, 12 percent of
the Nation was eligible, today it is estimated 90 percent of the Nation
is eligible.
There has been a tendency to base projects more on political
influence rather than true need. The 17 States represented by the
members of the relevant House and Senate subcommittees received $1.10
per capita in EDA grants in 1994, compared to 68 cents for the rest of
the Nation.
EDA's programs are very costly and too slow. An analysis of The
Emergency Jobs Act of 1983 revealed that only 84 previously unemployed
people received jobs under the program at a cost of $307,000 per job--
seven times the cost of a job created in the private sector.
A study conducted by the General Accounting Office failed to
establish a strong link between a positive economic effect in a
community and an agency's economic development assistance.
Even proponents of this program admit the problems I have mentioned
exist. As a solution to the waste of Federal funds and other problems
with the EDA, they have offered up reform efforts as the answer.
However, a year later, we are still spending the same amount of money
and no reform has taken place to address these concerns.
To quote the Commerce Department's Inspector General regarding reform
legislation, ``H.R. 2145 simply reenacts substantial portions of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and changes the
program delivery mechanism by reverting to a regional commission
structure similar to the one discontinued nearly 15 years ago with the
repeal of the former Title V of the 1965 act. We are concerned that the
bill does not directly address the types of deficiencies we have noted
over the years with respect to EDA, particularly issues of overly broad
eligibility criteria and problems stemming from inadequate programmatic
oversight.''
It is obvious the EDA has failed at its intended mission. Due to the
budgetary constraints and the lack of a justifiable Federal role in
these programs, it makes good sense to zero out this agency within the
Department of Commerce.
I ask for your vote to strike EDA funding in the fiscal year 1997
Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the Economic Development
Administration, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
We debated this issue on this bill last year and the year before and
the year before that. Last year 310 members, representing a majority of
both Republicans and Democrats, voted resoundingly to support the work
of this agency.
I urge the House to turn back this effort to eliminate the EDA for
the same reasons we have done for the last several years.
First, we have drastically cut this agency back and forced it to
target its dollars on projects in truly distressed communities. Right
now EDA funding is 21-percent below last year because of the work of
this committee and this House. We proposed not one penny more in this
bill, and in fact we provide less than the Administration requested. We
also tell EDA it must continue targeting its money at the most
distressed communities, in line with the reforms the House has already
passed.
Second, if we do not vote this amendment down, we will deprive hard-
hit communities in every State of the vital assistance these programs
provide. EDA helps our poorest urban and rural communities to provide
for themselves and to raise their standards of livings.
EDA also helps communities recover from sudden and severe jobs
losses, like factory shutdowns or other disasters. And if your district
has suffered from cutbacks in the defense industry, EDA is the major
Federal program responsible for helping communities recover from those
closed bases. EDA helps fund projects on military bases scheduled for
closure so that communities and workers can reuse the base for another
purpose.
We have cut EDA by almost $100 million from where it was in 1995. We
have cut the bureaucracy by over 35 percent. The agency has been
streamlined and downsized, and the development and selection of
projects has been moved out of Washington, back towards the local and
State levels.
We have worked closely with the authorizers to achieve those reforms,
and they are working. The EDA is helping our truly needy areas to
attract the private investments that lead to permanent jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Economic Development Administration was
created in 1965 to promote the recovery of economically distressed
areas. The EDA must not be doing its job very well because 31 years
later, 90 percent of the country is eligible for EDA grants.
Does that mean that 90 percent of the country is seriously
economically distressed, or does it mean that the EDA is no longer
running according to its original noble goals? Regardless of the
answer, something must be wrong with the EDA.
We are being asked today to spend over $300 million on projects that
do not live up to the scrutiny placed on them by the Commerce
Department Inspector General. We have reports of rampant fraud and
abuse with EDA funds, and this is nothing new. This is something that
has been going on for at least a decade. We keep getting the reports
over and over again. We keep getting the reports of the misuse of funds
on the part of the EDA.
[[Page H8212]]
Almost everyone that looks at the EDA except this body says that the
EDA is a waste and is one of the chief means of funneling pork into
Members' districts. I am not surprised that over 300 people voted
against doing away with the EDA last year. I have been down here time
and time again, trying to get rid of the EDA year after year, and the
votes are strong anyway. Why not? It is pork for your districts, and
that is why we support the EDA.
The EDA has shown that as long as we continue to fund them at these
levels, they will continue to abuse taxpayer funds. Mr. Chairman, it is
time we take away the EDA's gold card.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
(Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, several years ago a book was written entitled, ``We've
Been Down So Long, It Looks Like Up.'' It described much of Appalachia
during the 1970's and 1980's. It described much of rural America that
is benefiting from the Economic Development Administration.
The previous speaker talked about 90 percent of the country being
eligible for EDA. That is a figment. That is a fiction. The bill that
we have repeatedly passed in this House from the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure revamps the whole EDA program, but we
have never been able to get it enacted into law. But the program is
administered so that not 90 percent but a vastly smaller number of the
country, only those most distressed areas are actually eligible and
benefit from the program.
Several years ago when I chaired the Economic Development
Subcommittee and Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, we
conducted hearings on the effectiveness of the EDA program. In the
first 15 years of EDA, $4.7 billion was invested. That leveraged $9
billion in non-Federal funds, creating 1.5 million jobs, and from those
jobs every year $6.5 billion in taxes are being paid to Federal, State
and local governments.
Every year the taxes generated by EDA are greater than the total
investment in this program in 31 years. Those jobs are still there,
they are real, people are still working.
Take the Fort Holabird Industrial Park in Baltimore, abandoned by the
military, re-created into an industrial park, $11 million from the city
and a total investment of $42 million, an EDA grant of $11 million,
4,000 new jobs created, 1,000 jobs retained. Take the Mohawk Valley
Economic Development District in New York, 1,600 jobs created at a cost
per job of $1,500. Good jobs, real jobs.
Let us keep EDA. It is a locally controlled program.
{time} 2030
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I would like to ask the body this question: Are there any areas in
their districts that are depressed? Is there any section of their
district that they would consider in poverty; in need of jobs? If the
answer is ``yes,'' then I would like them to find an answer to the
following question: What is the Federal Government's role in economic
development?
I want to give my colleagues three ideas about the Federal
Government's role in economic development and include in that a vastly
reformed Economic Development Administration where there is no pork.
No. 1, the Federal Government's role is to create an environment
conducive for economic productivity in the private sector. We would
agree with that.
No. 2, the Federal Government should enhance the competitive nature
of the market economy. Nobody would deny that.
And No. 3, our role in that mix is to act as a team player with the
community, with superintendents of schools, for example, to create a
job base.
EDA ensures a market economy. Vote against the amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] has 4
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 2
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]
has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the gentleman's amendment to eliminate funding from the economic
development assistance program.
I know of no other agency, no other program of the Federal Government
more critical to the needs of communities around this Nation than the
Economic Development Administration.
EDA programs target funds to areas in need of assistance and responds
to the special needs of each individual town and city. EDA has programs
which benefit communities in almost every stage of the development
process.
For those communities experiencing structural economic changes, such
as my community, EDA provides flexible assistance to help them design
and implement their own local recovery strategies.
This is a local effort, Mr. Chairman. It is nothing that is going to
hurt the Federal Government. They can keep up this initiative. We need
to stop killing proven programs that have met a need. We need to keep
the EDA going, and I ask this Congress to vote against this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. My
friend from Colorado said this program is pork for our districts. That
is not accurate. This program is jobs and infrastructure and economic
development for our districts.
Most of EDA's funds go toward important grants and low-cost loans.
Let me give my colleagues one success story. When the Canadian-owned
Norbord Company invested $88 million in a new Mississippi plant last
year, it was an EDA grant for a water supply system that made that new
plant possible.
Now that water system is helping to keep more than 250 workers
employed in good jobs, generating tax revenues and contributing to the
local and national economies.
EDA helps economically distressed communities build a solid base on
which sustainable economic development can be established and
maintained. I urge my colleagues to support this valuable government
program and defeat the amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], my good friend and colleague,
to close for our part.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for
yielding me this time.
EDA. We are talking water systems, we are talking sewer systems, we
are talking industrial parks, we are talking of job creation, we are
talking technical assistance; we are talking, if you have the
misfortune of having a defense base close down, we are talking defense
conversion assistance, something a lot of Members have had to draw upon
here.
I am proud this is a bipartisan effort to fight for EDA because it is
to let people know that EDA generates more than $3 in private sector
dollars for every $1 of Federal money that goes into it.
I have heard the concern about EDA not applying to low-income areas.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the public works part of EDA 100 percent of
the money has gone to low-income, high-unemployment areas and 94
percent of the money has gone into areas as defined under our much
tougher authorization bill that unfortunately has not passed the other
body but has passed here a number of years.
[[Page H8213]]
In terms of audits, I am fascinated, since in the first half of 1996
the IG reviewed 292 independent audits of EDA projects and questioned
only 10. I want to read to my colleagues, though. I asked a lot of
constituents to tell me what they thought of EDA, and the chairman of
the Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport Authority in Martinsburg
wrote,
Without the $2 million in Economic Development
Administration funding, the creation of our airport
industrial park would not have been possible. As it is, Phase
I is now under construction, and we anticipate that in Phase
I as many as 3,000 high-income jobs will be created. Phase II
may see that number swell as high as 5,000 jobs in total.
The average public works expenditure per job created by EDA is
$1,922, which compares very favorably with the private sector. In fact,
it is better. So all this stuff about 300,000--and, incidentally, those
projects the gentleman mentioned a while back, they were under previous
administrations by Presidents who were not favorable, ironically, to
the EDA. That has not been the case under the tighter standards of the
past few years.
So I would urge Members on a bipartisan basis to reject this ill-
timed amendment. We want economic growth in this country, not economic
retreat. EDA is one of the few agencies providing that.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has the right
to close; therefore, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] is
recognized to utilize the remainder of his time.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Hostettler amendment is simple--it seeks to
eliminate all funding for the Economic Development Administration
[EDA]. The EDA, an agency within the Department of Commerce, has long
been a source of contention. In fact, the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush
Administrations all attempted to abolish EDA on the grounds that the
agency was limited in scope and its initiatives should be funded by
State and local governments.
EDA's programs, while well-intentioned, are at best duplicative and
at worst downright wasteful. Four separate Departments--along with the
ARC, TVA, and SBA--fund similar development programs.
And there is no evidence to show that EDA's programs on the whole are
a good investment. An April 1996 GAO report was unable to find any
study that established a strong causal linkage between a positive
economic effect in a community and Federal economic development
assistance. In other words, GAO was unable to find any study to justify
the core mission of EDA.
What we do know and what has been documented in the Inspector
General's semiannual reports to Congress is the high volume of wasteful
and misused funds in EDA projects. Some lowlights: A 1993 audit of a
New York grant revealed over $12 million in questionable costs. In this
case, $10.2 million was used to build a hockey rink for the U.S.
Olympic hockey team that the team never used and city officials
admitted created no new jobs. The audit is also replete with accounts
of sweetheart deals and corrupt public officials.
A 1993 audit of an Oklahoma grant questioned the entire $2.4 million
of Federal reimbursement. These funds were supposed to be used to
provide water and sewer facilities so that a local company could
construct a de-boning plant. I quote from the report. ``The EDA public
improvements increasing water and sewer capacity had no impact in the
creation of plant jobs * * * and all of the 300 jobs could have been
created without the EDA-funded improvements.''
Like most Government spending programs, EDA has its committed
advocates in Congress. They will tell you that the Federal Government
is better equipped to create jobs than the private sector. They will
acknowledge the waste and abuse in EDA's programs, yet they will insist
that EDA has been reformed. They will argue that EDA is needed to
correct economic displacement caused by base closures even though less
than a tenth of all EDA money goes to defense adjustment assistance,
and a good deal of that money is wasted as well.
What the EDA proponents will not answer is this: As we struggle to
balance the budget in a responsible manner, how can we continue to
spend taxpayer money on an agency that has such a dubious track record?
I encourage my colleagues to ignore the red herrings and stand up for
the American taxpayer. Support the Hostettler amendment and fold the
tent at the EDA.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Ladies and gentleman, it is kind of disheartening when we look at
what has happened to the deficits in this country. We do have a $5
trillion deficit that has accumulated over the years. If we had let
things continue the way they were, with President Clinton's projected
5-year budgets, we would have increased that to $1 trillion more. That
would have raised the annual debt service from, say $250 billion up to
almost $300. That is $50 billion less that we do not have to help truly
needy people.
My district has benefited by the EDA over the years. We have fought
hard to try to get money there. Got a village by the name of
Ticondoroga, or rather the town of Moriah, that just got a $1 million
grant, and that is going to help. But the truth of the matter is we
have to tighten our belts somewhere.
We have to bring these programs together and to merge them. If we do
not do that, that debt is going to continue to grow. We have the
Farmers Home Administration, the Rural Development Agency, the
Community Development Block Grants, and a number of other Federal
programs that can do the same things as the EDA. In the States many of
my colleagues come from, and New York State where I come from, there
are a number of programs out there that are duplicative and do the same
thing. Where are we going to cut?
Look at the vote on the Legal Services Corporation a little while
ago. That was so disheartening. We added money back instead of cutting.
Where are we going to balance the budget? Do may colleagues not worry
about their children and their grandchildren? I worry about my four
grandchildren. I do not know how in the world or what kind of country
they are going to live in if we do not have the guts around here to
tighten our belts a little bit like the American people are doing.
I support this amendment. It does not mean we are going to knock off
all these programs. They are going to be there because we are merging
and bringing these programs together in other forms. If we eliminate
the Department of Commerce, that saves 36,000 jobs and pensions that go
with them.
These are the things we have to do, ladies and gentleman. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment. As much as I understand there are
some good programs in it, there is an awful lot of waste there, too.
Like one program that costs $307,000 per newly created job. $307,000?
That is a shame.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in the beginning, I would just like to address a point
that was made earlier with regard to base closure. In an August 2
update to the subcommittee earlier, the Office of the Inspector General
stated that although EDA was complying with congressional mandates in
administering a program with regard to base closures, they had two
preliminary concerns that had been expressed to the agency.
First of all, the project's ability to mitigate the effect of
military base closures or convert defense technology to civilian
applications appeared limited.
Second, a disproportionate share of the projects were concentrated in
a few States, which speaks to the point I made earlier with regard to
the number of dollars that go to States that are represented on the
relevant House and Senate subcommittees.
In closing, I would just like to say this. There has been a lot of
touting with regard to economic development and these monies used for
that, but the fact is, Mr. Chairman, where do these monies come from?
They are tax dollars that have to be taken either from other companies
who would like to create jobs in their particular district, or from
individuals who are trying to raise a family on what is becoming a more
and more limited income as a result of the size and intrusiveness of
the Federal Government.
I guess the point is this. If Members think economic development
should be done by the public sector, then they do
[[Page H8214]]
not want to support this amendment. But if they think real jobs are
created in the private sector, long-lasting jobs, not, for example,
800,000 golf courses that get washed away, but if Members think real
long-term job growth happens in the private sector, then we need to let
businesses and individuals keep more of the money they earn that they
use to create jobs and wealth in this country.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
One quick example. There was a defense contractor in my district that
made harnesses for F-14 jets. They shut down, 200 jobs out. Leveraging
EDA loans we created a high-technology center which now employs about
200 people that does the same kind of thing in the private sector.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized
for 1 minute for the purpose of closing.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House, who has
reformed EDA.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Now, the criticisms that we are hearing about EDA are accurate. They
are accurate but they are in the past tense. We have reformed this
agency. We heard tonight about 90 percent of the country being
eligible. That is the way is was, but that is not the way it is based
on the instructions given to EDA from both the authorizers and the
appropriating committee. Only distressed communities are getting the
money. It is not 90 percent. Only about 45 percent are even considered,
and the actual money is flowing to only about 20 percent. The most
needy. This is job creation.
With regard to the issue of local businesses and governments
participating, we now have a 50 percent match requirement. So this is
not the Federal Government handing out dollar bills, it is the Federal
Government saying we will match you, but you put up your local money.
Defeat this amendment, Save the EDA.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hostettler
amendment and in strong support of targeted economic development.
My largely rural district in central and western Massachusetts has
endured some major economic shifts, including a significant portion of
New England's losses in the paper industries.
My communities need new jobs, but they do not always have the
resources to begin economic growth in a new direction.
That's where the EDA comes in.
Economic development seed money--often grants of relatively modest
amounts--can make a world of difference to a sluggish local economy.
The EDA injects economic life into an area by: Creating industrial
parks by funding utilities construction; or providing hard to come by
capital for revolving small business loans; or by funding the regional
economic planning necessary for small communities to coordinate their
job-creating efforts.
And the EDA is the only Federal agency that helps implement
strategies to adjust to defense downsizing, turning abandoned military
bases into hubs for new businesses.
My district has benefited greatly from these types of critical
investment.
The development of Summit Industrial Park in Gardner, MA, and
economic dislocation lending to small businesses by the Franklin County
Community Development Corporation are two examples of current EDA-
funded projects in my area.
These projects are partnerships, with the State and local governments
contributing their fair share.
Termination of the EDA would do little to balance the budget.
Three hundred and forty-nine million dollars in this bill is one-
fiftieth of 1 percent of the total Federal budget for fiscal year 1997.
What terminating the EDA would do is kill a great catalyst for
economic renewal, and the best hope many of my constituents have for a
future paycheck.
I urge a no vote on the Hostettler amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
which would eliminate funding for the Economic Development
Administration.
The EDA is a lean, efficient Government agency that promotes economic
development in distressed communities throughout the Nation.
The agency helps communities improve their infrastructure, adjust to
the impact of defense downsizing, and recover from natural disasters
such as floods and earthquakes.
EDA is also an agency that has effectively reinvented itself during
the last several years by streamlining its regulations, reducing staff
levels and overhead expenses, and strengthening the public-private
partnership to create jobs and promote local economic development.
In my district, the agency is a proven success in creating jobs and
revitalizing an economy, which has been devastated by the impact of
defense downsizing.
EDA has funded the Small Business Resource Center in Kingston, NY,
for example, a program that assists small business start-ups and
provides technical and market information to local businesses seeking
to expand.
Since its opening just over a year ago, the resource center has
helped many small businesses in the area improve their operations and
their profitability.
The center has also facilitated the start up of 15 new businesses in
just 12 months.
EDA's support for the resource center has helped Ulster County
recover from the impact of defense downsizing, and in that regard the
agency is somewhat unique at the Federal level.
It is the only agency that maintains a major program solely dedicated
to assisting communities that have suffered due to defense cutbacks.
The Defense Adjustment Assistance Program assists economically-
distressed communities build a solid base on which sustainable economic
development can be established and maintained.
This helps explain how EDA has saved almost 10 thousand jobs in the
State of New York in less than 4 years.
Is this really the best economic development strategy that the
sponsors of this amendment can come up with?
I urge my colleagues to join me and Chairman Rogers in opposing this
unwise amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan
effort to retain the Economic Development Administration and in
opposition to the amendment to eliminate funding for the EDA.
We certainly need to downsize government and focus our resources on
the priorities which help our people and the communities in which they
live. So while all agencies must help us tighten their belts and move
toward a balanced budget, I would argue the EDA is more than worthy of
our continued support at an appropriate level of funding.
I represent a coal mining district that has been severely impacted by
the Federal Clean Air Act. We are desperately trying to diversify our
economy, and in that effort the EDA has been extremely helpful by
investing in basic infrastructure which brings in new industry and
jobs.
The State of illinois has received funds through the EDA for nearly
150 projects since fiscal year 1992. It is the EDA that helps to
provide essential services such as sewer lines and water towers to
communities with substantial and persistent economic needs. In
addition, these projects have helped to create thousands of greatly
needed jobs in my State.
Last year 309 members of this body agreed that the EDA deserved
appropriate funding, albeit at a 21 percent cut from the 1995 level.
The EDA is scheduled to receive that same amount this year. I again
purpose that we can, and should, continue to show support for the EDA
by opposing any measure eliminating its funding.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Economic
Development Administration [EDA]. The EDA has been continually active
throughout the country, especially in my district. Through public
works, technical assistance, planning, community investments, and
revolving loan fund programs, EDA has established local partnerships
that have provided critical infrastructure development and other
economic incentives that have stimulated local growth, created jobs and
generated revenues.
EDA's Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Firms and Industries
[TAA] has been an effective tool in helping U.S. firms and industries
injured by international trade. By stemming firms' losses in sales and
employment and by restoring growth, the program preserved and created a
total of over 62,000 jobs in 500 companies studied.
Without EDA's National Technical Assistance program, many successful
innovative economic development projects and activities would never be
undertaken. This program stimulates technology development and transfer
and helps U.S. manufacturers and industries develop new products and
processes and utilize appropriate product and production technologies.
[[Page H8215]]
The Economic Development Administration's role in disaster recovery
is to provide assistance to communities to achieve long-term economic
recovery through the strategic investment of local resources. In the
last 3 years, at least 13 States have been victims of natural disasters
that EDA has assisted in rebuilding their communities and revitalizing
their local economies.
EDA operates the largest Federal program for defense adjustment. The
Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment does an excellent
job of supporting base reuse and community planning, only EDA can
support the implementation of these plans. Over the next few years,
communities affected by BRAC will be approaching EDA for critical base
reuse funds.
Under EDA's Economic Adjustment Program, communities are provided
with unique flexibility to design local strategies that achieve
economic change and stability, and multicomponent projects to implement
those strategies. This program serves a unique role in the nation's
response to post-disaster economic recovery, base closure and defense
industry downsizing as well as prolonged, persistent economic
deterioration.
The administration's Infrastructure and Development Facilities
Program aids economically distressed communities. It assists with
construction of projects that improve opportunities for the
establishment and expansion of commercial and industrial plants and
facilities among other things. Since 1965 when EDA was created, this
program has created more than 1.5 million jobs across the country.
I urge my colleagues opposition to amendments threatening EDA's
funding.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to any
amendment that would terminate and/or cut funding for the Economic
Development Administration--the EDA.
Mr. Chairman, this year's recommended funding level for the EDA is
but $328.5 million. This is identical to the funding for fiscal year
1996--reflecting a 20-percent cut in EDA funding since fiscal 1995.
This is surely representative of EDA's fair share of reduced Federal
spending we are called upon to make.
One of the most important features of EDA funding is that it provides
vital funding to communities that have had, and are still experiencing,
base closures and defense downsizing.
If it were not for the EDA, defense conversion funds, set at $95
million in fiscal year 1997, where bases have been closed and Defense
industry jobs lost--communities would not have the money to pick
themselves up and dust themselves off--and get back on their feet
again.
While West Virginia has had no base closures, and so Defense
conversion funds do not assist my constituents, I know that many States
depend upon the EDA's Defense conversions for economic development
assistance, and I want them to have this $95 million set aside for that
purpose.
EDA funds also go to local development districts and university
centers, and to areas that have been devastated by spring floods, and
winter blizzards, and earthquakes, and hurricanes and tornadoes.
But such funds are also spent on communities faced with both chronic
and sudden economic downturns that result in massive job losses.
Over the past 30 years, EDA has created almost 40,000 economic
development projects, generated more than $2 billion of private sector
capital through revolving loan funds, supported more than 7,000
businesses, and leveraged $3 for every Federal dollar invested. That
doesn't sound like golden fleece awards to me.
My colleagues, listen to what is being said around you by Members of
this body about how much EDA means to their economically distressed
areas, and defeat any amendment to kill or reduce the EDA program, just
as you defeated their twins last year.
{time} 2045
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 479, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]
will be postponed.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Goss) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gunderson, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3814)
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________