[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.

                          ____________________