[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7770-H7786]
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, 1998

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. Pursuant to House Resolution 
239 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. 2267.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1722


                     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. 
2267) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of 
Nebraska, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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, H.R. 2267, the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, is the centerpiece of action 
by the Congress this year to: First, continue the war on crime and 
drugs; second, make our neighborhoods safer for families and children; 
third, bring our borders under control; and fourth, address 
skyrocketing rate of juvenile crime with an aggressive new initiative 
in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the determination of this Nation to reduce crime is 
paying off. The Nation's crime rate today is lower than any time since 
1985. In 1996 serious reported crime in the United States declined 3 
percent, including an 11 percent decline in murder rates.
  The Congress deserves substantial credit for beginning to turn the 
corner on crime after many years of effort. Over the past 2 fiscal 
years, this subcommittee and the Congress have increased funding for 
law enforcement programs by $4.5 billion, a 30 percent increase, and 
this year we redouble those efforts.
  Overall, our bill provides $31.7 billion. That is an increase of $750 
million or 3 percent over fiscal 1997 in discretionary spending, and 
another $750 million from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. But 
90 percent of the increase in this bill is for law enforcement 
programs.
  For the Department of Justice the bill provides $17.6 billion, an 
increase of $1.2 billion, 7 percent over current year, $339 million 
more than was requested by the administration for law enforcement. We 
provide an increase of $726 million for State and local law 
enforcement, $738 million more than the President asked of us.
  We restore the Local Law Enforcement block grant at $523 million to 
provide direct funding to our communities for their most pressing 
needs. The President proposed to eliminate it. We disagreed.
  This bill attacks the growing problem of juvenile crime, a crisis 
that must be addressed by the country. Twenty percent of those arrested 
for violent crime are less than 18 years of age, 70 percent higher than 
it was 10 years ago. Weapons offenses and homicides are two of the 
fastest growing crimes committed by juveniles.
  This bill faces that issue straight on. We include a total of $538 
million for new juvenile crime initiatives. We provide $300 million for 
new juvenile crime block grants, compared to $150 million requested by 
the White House to fund H.R. 3 that passed the House by a 2 to 1 
margin. Another $238 million in the bill is for juvenile crime 
prevention programs, $64 million over last year, $7 million more than 
we were requested, and that funds H.R. 1818, the bipartisan bill that 
passed the House in July, an initiative again of the Congress.
  For violence against women programs we provide $306 million. That is 
a $109 million increase over current spending, $57 million more than 
the President requested.
  For the war on drugs we provide a $200 million increase, including a 
$134 million increase for the Drug Enforcement Administration; a $34 
million initiative in the Caribbean, a main route into our Nation from 
South America of hard drugs; a $51 million increase for the Southwest 
border, the other big avenue for drugs coming into our country; and $46 
million to combat heroin and the reemergence of methamphetamines as a 
scourge on our young people.
  To control our borders that are still allowing 300,000 more illegal 
immigrants into the country each year, we provide a $272 million 
increase for the

[[Page H7771]]

Immigration and Naturalization Service. That includes a thousand new 
border patrol agents, which is twice what we were asked for by the 
White House.
  We provide $25 million to restore integrity to the naturalization 
process, ending the fingerprint scam that has contributed to felons 
receiving the most precious grant that we have, citizenship in the 
United States. We require criminal record checks before they are 
granted citizenship, and we revoke citizenship wrongfully granted to 
criminals by the dozens of thousands just last year.
  The bill also authorizes and directs the Attorney General to fire on 
the spot any INS employee who does not follow department policy on 
granting citizenship or who willfully deceives the Congress, as has 
occurred in the past year.

                              {time}  1730

  Six hundred million dollars goes to States for their costs in jailing 
illegal aliens, a $100 million increase over last year and over the 
President's request.
  This bill, Mr. Chairman, does not let up in the war on crime, drugs, 
and illegal immigration, and we break new ground on juvenile crime and 
juvenile crime prevention.
  For the balance of the bill, with very few exceptions, funding is 
provided at or below current levels. For the Commerce Department, the 
bill provides $4.1 billion, a $332 million increase, and that is 
related to the ramp-up for the decennial census in the year 2000.
  On the 2000 census, Mr. Chairman, the issue is whether to spend more 
than $4 billion in the next three years for a census that abandons for 
the first time in our history an actual head count before we know 
whether or not such a procedure is constitutional and legal, or whether 
to do the most prudent and logical thing and get the courts to tell us 
beforehand whether or not sampling, if you will, is constitutional and 
legal.
  The bill provides $382 million for the census. That is an increase of 
$298 million over current spending and $27 million more than we were 
asked, so there can be no question of our willingness to spend what it 
takes to conduct the census in the right way, in the way it has always 
been done, every 10 years in the history of this Nation.
  The Administration wants us to abandon our history and take off on a 
new, untested, and many of us think, illegal, or unlawful, and 
unconstitutional process. The issue is what is required by our 
Constitution and the laws on the books. It is a legal question, and the 
bill assures there is a fair and impartial answer from the only body 
that can provide that, the Supreme Court.
  The legislative branch and the executive branch of government differ 
on this point. They say it is legal; we say it is not. The third 
branch, the Judiciary, under our Constitution, is the only body that 
can deliberate that question and answer it.
  Before billions of dollars of taxpayers' monies are put at risk for 
the first time in a sampling process that we think is unconstitutional, 
the Congress, the Administration, and, most importantly, the public 
deserve to have the dispute resolved beforehand, and that is what we do 
in the bill.
  For the international programs in the bill, State Department 
operations, the United States Information Agency, the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency, for all practical purposes, the bill level funds 
them.
  The only new initiative is $40 million to fund a 24 hour broadcasting 
operation to China through Radio Free Asia and Voice of America, an 
initiative proposed by the Speaker and endorsed by the President.
  For international organizations and peacekeeping the bill provides $3 
million less than in fiscal 1997. Within that reduced amount, we 
provide $100 million for United Nations arrearages, but only if an 
authorization bill passes the Congress and only if that authorization 
bill contains real and substantial reforms of the United Nations as a 
condition for release of the money. It has been this Subcommittee all 
these years that has been the driving force in pushing for reform of 
the United Nations, and it is beginning to work. Reforms first, and 
only then the first step toward payment of the arrearages.
  For the Legal Services Corporation, the bill provides $141 million, 
which is half of the current level. We keep the restrictions on these 
funds to ensure that they are spent only to provide civil legal 
assistance to the poor, and adds a new one to give LSC more authority 
to sanction grantees that violate those important restrictions.
  I want to thank my very able ranking minority member, the very able 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], who has been a very 
helpful and wise helpmate in drafting of the bill. I want to thank our 
full committee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
who has been especially helpful, as well as the ranking full committee 
minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for being 
very helpful, and, of course, all the members of our subcommittee who 
have been able and helpful workmates in preparing this bill. We 
appreciate their help and support, more than we can say.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will give the American people a stronger 
domestic defense against crime, while exercising restraint and 
insisting on reform in the balance of the bill. It is a bill that I 
commend highly to our colleagues, and urge their support.
  


[[Page H7772]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.004

 


[[Page H7773]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.005

 


[[Page H7774]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.006

 


[[Page H7775]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.007

 


[[Page H7776]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.008

 


[[Page H7777]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.009

 


[[Page H7778]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.010

 


[[Page H7779]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.011

 


[[Page H7780]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE97.012




[[Page H7781]]

  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 thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the 
distinguished chairman, for his kind remarks. I want to echo my remarks 
from the full committee markup regarding the fine job that our chairman 
has done on this bill. Chairman Rogers characteristically has done an 
exemplary job with regard to this bill. He has worked diligently, he 
has taken excellent testimony from the agencies, from outside 
witnesses, and he has put together a document at the same time, 
including the concerns of the minority and certainly our input. We are 
very appreciative of that attitude and that way of proceeding and think 
it is very constructive and thank him for it.
  I also want to commend at the beginning the fine work and hard work 
of some awfully good staff, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to note 
the excellent work that two members of my personal staff have done, Liz 
Whyte and Sally Gaines. I appreciate their tireless efforts throughout 
the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill. It has been tremendous and 
the minority, we sometimes we work harder because we have less staff 
and they have done a tremendous job, both of my personal staff, and I 
am very appreciative.
  Likewise, I am especially appreciative to the minority appropriations 
staff, Mark Murray, David Reich, and Pat Schlueter, for the excellent 
job they likewise have done in conjunction with the hard working 
committee staff, Jim Kulikowski, Therese McAuliffe, Jennifer Miller, 
Mike Ringler, and Jane Weisman. The committee is certainly well served 
by all these dedicated staff personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, as the chairman has indicated in his remarks, much of 
which I associate myself with, there are a lot of things to like about 
this bill. Few will find fault with the robust funds that have been 
provided for the Department of Justice and law enforcement in general. 
Funds are provided in excess of those requested by the administration 
in many accounts.
  Clearly law enforcement is an important priority of the Congress. It 
is an important priority of this administration, it is an important 
priority of the Nation, and the bill certainly rises to the occasion.
  Members will be pleased to know that generous increases are provided 
over fiscal year 1997 spending levels for the FBI, for U.S. attorneys, 
for the U.S. Marshal Service, and for the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. We have doubled the administration's requests 
for border patrol agents and provided more funds than requested by the 
President for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
  Such funds will enable us to continue our important work in combating 
terrorism, illicit drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. Of 
particular note with regard to curbing the flow of illicit drugs into 
the United States, funds are provided for both a Southwest border 
initiative and a Caribbean initiative. In the area of State and local 
enforcement, I am pleased to report that full funding is provided for 
the COPS Program and the Byrne grant program. We see no debate on those 
issues on the floor this year.
  Members of this committee will also be pleased to know the Violence 
Against Women's Act Program is funded above the President's request in 
this bill. I am happy to note that particular focus has been given to 
funding for juvenile justice delinquency prevention programs. We have 
provided a small increase above the President's request for juvenile 
crime prevention programs; $300 million has been provided for a new 
block grant program and funds for the local law enforcement block grant 
program are also included.
  With respect to our international commitments, this bill represents 
the beginning of a bipartisan effort to eliminate our U.N. arrearages, 
and I am hopeful we will continue on this track in the future. I know 
there are some amendments addressing this issue. I hope that they are 
not seriously entertained by the Congress and that they are defeated.
  Also, I want to mention that this bill provides increases over fiscal 
year 1997 for a number of State Department operating accounts.
  Lastly, I feel that this bill in most instances deals fairly with the 
Commerce Department. The chairman has continued his commitment to such 
important programs as the public works grant program, PTFP, 
manufacturing extension partnership program, trade adjustment 
assistance, and the International Trade Administration.
  Additionally, this bill provides more than the administration's 
request for the critical missions of the National Weather Service, 
being responsive to the concerns that were expressed during markup and 
during the summer and spring about the National Weather Service and its 
ability to perform its mission.
  As pleased as I am with the funding levels, Mr. Chairman, for these 
programs that I have just mentioned, I want my colleagues to understand 
that this bill, like everything else, is not perfect. There are several 
issues which I would like to improve. I wanted to mention just a few of 
those that stand out.
  First, although this bill provides more than the administration has 
requested for the 2000 census, I am deeply concerned with the 
restrictions placed on sampling, the most contentious issue in this 
bill, and restrictions on the Census Bureau in general.
  The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I plan to offer an 
amendment on this issue, which I hope my colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle will consider supporting. Sampling is the solution that the 
National Academy of Sciences has come up with to speak to the concerns 
expressed by many Members of this body after the 1990 census, when we 
were expressing doubts about the accuracy of the census. We asked 
experts to look at this issue and to recommend to the Congress how we 
could make the census more accurate, how we could count more people, 
how we could include more of the population in the process, and the 
answer was sampling.
  Sampling is not new in the census process. It has been used for a 
number of the censuses, I am advised going back some 30 years, but the 
sophistication of the process and the extent of incorporating it into 
the census would be new, and the Census Bureau, regardless of what we 
do with sending it to the courts or sending it to the authorizers for 
legislative disposition of the issue of sampling, we need to be able to 
plan to incorporate sampling in the process.
  Under the language in the bill, we cannot do that because of the 
delays inherent in the bill language. We would be so far into the 
process that the Census Bureau could not bring sampling into the census 
taking.
  We need to fix that, and the Mollohan-Shays amendment does it. If the 
Mollohan-Shays amendment is not adopted, Mr. Chairman, the President 
will likely veto this bill.
  This bill provides $185 million for the advanced technology program. 
While I am pleased that the chairman is providing some funding, it 
still is significantly below what was requested by the administration, 
and I hope we can increase that funding as time goes on.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I regret that a 50 percent reduction was made 
to the funding for the Legal Services Corporation. As many know, the 
Legal Services Corporation is the only place many impoverished 
individuals in our Nation can turn to in times of legal need. The 
funding level provided in this bill will ensure that many, many of our 
most vulnerable citizens will not have legal representation in times of 
crisis. That is unacceptable in America.
  I plan to offer an amendment later in the debate to restore $190 
million in funding to this vital agency. We are going to destroy the 
language in the bill and replace it with the language in my amendment.
  This will also be a bipartisan amendment, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], who was a cosponsor of the amendment last 
year to restore funds to Legal Services, will also be the cosponsor on 
this bipartisan amendment.
  This list is not exhaustive, but highlights a number of areas which I 
hope can improve the bill as it proceeds. I want to thank the chairman 
for his cooperation, leadership, good faith efforts, and responsiveness 
to our concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H7782]]

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to join the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], my ranking 
member, in also thanking staff on the subcommittee and our personal 
staffs for the excellent work that they have done in getting us to this 
point. Were it not for them, we would not be here, obviously.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula], one of the very able and hard-working members of this 
subcommittee, who also is chairman of one of the subcommittees of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on Interior, and who also 
does a wonderful job there.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will summarize. There are three important points I would like to 
make. First, this bill has an initiative to combat juvenile 
delinquency. This is a growing problem in our society, and we recognize 
it by increasing the appropriation for this program by 63 plus million 
dollars. How does it work? It works very well in terms of getting out 
and developing partnerships.
  Recently the Attorney General of Ohio, Betty Montgomery, and myself 
participated in unveiling Ohio's OASIS project: Ohio's Accelerated 
School-based Intervention Solution. This is designed to establish a 
partnership among the State officials, the local officials, the 
schools, the private sector to deal with juvenile problems, and it 
focuses on early intervention, recognizing that the best medicine is 
preventive medicine, and if we can reach these young people early on, 
there is a good chance of helping them avoid trouble later down the 
road. This program is funded by the monies in this bill.
  Secondly, there is money in this bill to promote U.S. exports abroad 
and to enforce U.S. trade laws at home. The Commerce Department's 
merchandiz- ing export sales statistics from Canton-Massillon, which is 
part of my district, have increased 50 percent from 1993 to 1995. I 
think it indicates the importance of exports and ensures that these are 
done on a fair basis, that they are encouraged, and likewise, to 
prevent dumping into our own markets. Thus, it is important that we 
support the International Trade Administration. This bill contains an 
increase for the Commerce Department to ensure that the ITA will have 
adequate funds to ensure that trade laws are enforced correctly.
  The last item is the ``made in USA'' label. Some thought that this 
could be reduced to 75 percent and still qualify on goods produced in 
the United States. I think that is wrong. If it is made in the USA, it 
should be made in the USA.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 1997 Commerce, 
Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act. I would like to 
commend Chairman Rogers and ranking member Mr. Mollohan for balancing 
the many different functions and programs that are funded in this bill. 
You have worked hard, Mr. Chairman, to accommodate many diverse and 
competing interests in the bill.
  One of the highlights of this bill is the initiative to combat 
juvenile delinquency. It is disturbing to note that since 1989, arrests 
of Ohio juveniles for violent crimes have risen 62 percent, and 20 
percent of all violent crimes nationally are committed by youths under 
the age of 18.
  But, there are many solutions being sought, and this bill contains a 
$63.4 million increase in funding for Juvenile Justice programs to fund 
many of these programs. The increased funding is directed not only 
toward law enforcement initiatives to punish violent juvenile 
offenders, but also toward quality intervention and prevention programs 
to help our youth from falling into the delinquency trap.
  Earlier this month, I joined Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery 
in unveiling Project OASIS (Ohio Accelerated School-based Intervention 
Solution), an innovative new youth delinquency intervention and 
prevention program in Ohio. The program will provide intensive 
supervision for youth in grades 5-7 who are at-risk for increased 
delinquent behavior.
  Project OASIS, which receives funding from the Justice Department's 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, represents an effective 
solution crafted by a Federal, State and local partnership. I continue 
to strongly support this and other programs that provide specific 
solutions that work in a particular State or locality to help our youth 
stay on track and finish their educations.

  Another issue of importance to north-east Ohio is the important work 
that the Commerce Department is doing to promote U.S. exports abroad 
and to enforce U.S. trade laws at home to ensure that U.S. companies 
have a level playing field in the global marketplace.
  In recent statistics released by the Commerce Department, merchandise 
export sales from the Canton-Massillon area in my district have 
increased 50 percent from 1993 to 1995. We are further told by federal 
officials that, on average, jobs supported by exports pay 13 to 16 
percent more than other U.S. jobs.
  Therefore, I support the $9.5 million increase for the Commerce 
Department's International Trade Administration because expending 
exports, as well as protecting domestic companies against unfair 
foreign trade practices, are both crucial to creating and maintaining 
high wage jobs in the U.S.
  Finally, I would like to highlight report language with respect to 
recent proposed changes to the ``Made in the USA'' label made by the 
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These proposed new guidelines would 
allow the ``Made in the USA'' label to be used on products for which 
U.S. manufacturing costs are as low as 75 percent of the total 
manufacturing costs. The Committee report urges the FTC to retain the 
current standard for ``Made in the USA'' which requires that ``all or 
virtually all'' of the product must be made in America. U.S. consumers 
should not be misled and U.S. workmanship should not be undersold.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and I look 
forward to working with the Chairman when the bill reaches conference.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a very excellent member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers], our chairman, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan], and our excellent staff for their usual good work in putting 
this bill together. It really is an incredibly rich array of important 
funding for vital programs that this Government undertakes in behalf of 
all of our citizens. Many of them have already been mentioned: from law 
enforcement to crime prevention; border enforcement, immigration 
control and naturalization; the criminal and civil justice systems and 
our courts, all funded in this bill; important funding for the 
regulation of commerce, securities and communications; protection of 
intellectual property; the funding for research into the atmosphere and 
the oceans; cooperative efforts between government and private industry 
in cutting-edge technology through the ATP program; developing 
absolutely essential standards for commerce and industry through the 
National Institute for Standards and Technology; supporting this 
country's presence around the world in diplomacy and arms control and 
many other important international efforts; as the chairman pointed 
out, making major progress in resolving our U.N. funding arrearage 
issue; international trade, funding for the U.S. Trade Representatives, 
all vital services.
  In addition to the good work in these areas, we do have some serious 
problems. We have to raise the funding for legal services if our goal 
of equal justice under law is to be a meaningful one. We have to deal 
with the census sampling matter if we are honest about our desire to 
have an accurate count of the people in this country, and not using 
this as a passive aggressive technique for avoiding adding 
Representatives in this House from certain areas that are undercounted. 
Finally, there are some needs to reinforce funding in some vital trade 
areas and research areas, where I look forward to working with the 
chairman of the subcommittee as the bill moves through the process.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Forbes], a very hard-working member of our subcommittee.
  [Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I grew up on the eastern end of Long Island 
around Montauk Point. It is a beautiful part of the world, and needless 
to say, I have spent many a day during my youth swimming and fishing 
and boating on the Atlantic and Long Island Sound. Like so many, I 
possess a great respect for our natural coastal heritage.

[[Page H7783]]

  I want to commend and sincerely thank my chairman, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], and of course the ranking member, the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and the subcommittee staffs on both 
sides of the aisle, and, of course, my colleagues for crafting what I 
believe is an equitable, bipartisan bill that among so many good public 
policy issues addresses some of the problems facing the coastal areas, 
like my own on Long Island.
  Brown Tide is a micro-algae bloom that was first reported in the bays 
along Rhode Island in 1985, devastating our shellfish industry, a 
multimillion-dollar industry, and reducing the harvest from a high of 
278,000 pounds back in 1984 to just 250 pounds in 1988.
  This Brown Tide is a phenomenon that has gripped many coastal areas 
around the country, and like its related kin, the Red Tide that the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], my good friend, has been 
struggling to fight down in the Florida area, this phenomenon has 
created quite a lot of havoc. So I went to commend the subcommittee for 
its sensitivity in making sure that the Brown Tide and the Red Tide 
phenomena are dealt with in this legislation.
  Billions of dollars in economic growth and thousands of jobs, much 
less the countless recreational opportunities, are being wasted as a 
result of overfishing, and this bill deals in a good way with that 
problem. I support the committee's recommendation of $108.5 million for 
the National Marine Fisheries Service Conservation Management and 
Operations Program. It is an increase of about $5 million over existing 
funding, and it will provide the National Marine Fisheries with the 
kind of tools that it needs to deal with this very serious problem of 
overfishing in our waters.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], a distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2267. I would like to compliment the staff 
for their fine work, but, most important, the Members that serve on 
this committee. They are dedicated; they worked very hard to reach a 
consensus, and they deal with some problems that really confront 
America.
  This bill is very important to California. The issue of incarceration 
of illegal aliens has been a major problem for the budgetary 
constraints of the State of California, and I am pleased that, on a 
bipartisan basis, we have increased that fund from $500 million to $600 
million this year, and I thank my colleagues for that.
  As the chairman indicated, the bill provides for an additional 1,000 
Border Patrol people. If we are to get a handle on people that come 
across the border illegally, it is important to increase the personnel, 
and we have provided $125 million to do so. The COPS Program that has 
provided new employment for law enforcement officers in so many 
communities is funded at last year's level, but most importantly, the 
COPS technology program has earmarked $30 million for programs to fight 
the war against drugs and, in particular, the methamphetamine program. 
California is the capital of the manufacturing of methamphetamine, and 
I am pleased that myself and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
were able to encourage the committee to mark $18 million to fight that 
drug war.
  While I support this bill, there are serious problems with the bill 
that I hope will be modified and rectified as we move along on the 
floor and in conference. One is the limitation on sampling. I recognize 
that the chairman of the committee has come a long way in his effort to 
try to accommodate everybody on this issue, but I would urge my 
colleagues to listen to the debate and adopt and support the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  As the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] points out, it is very 
important that poor people have access to the civil courts of our 
society. This bill contains a 50 percent cut below last year's level of 
funding for the Legal Services Corporation, and I would ask my 
colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment that will raise it at 
least to $258 million.
  In all, I think this is a good job, but it is certainly proof that as 
we move along on the floor and in conference, that we can improve this 
bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2267, the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998. I commend 
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Mollohan for their work in bringing 
what can be a difficult bill to the floor. I want to thank the chairman 
and his staff for their openness and willingness to consider the 
concerns of all the subcommittee members. While I support H.R. 2267 and 
many of the important spending priorities reflected in the bill, I have 
very serious concerns about several provisions of this legislation, 
which I hope will be addressed on the floor and in conference with the 
Senate.
  The bill continues to bolster our control over the southwest border; 
increases funding to fight illegal drugs and crime; funds crime 
prevention programs; and begins to address the serious issue of U.S. 
arrears to international organizations.
  Controlling our southwestern border is of paramount importance to 
this Nation, my State of California, and particularly Los Angeles 
County. H.R. 2267 provides $125 million for 1,000 new Border Patrol 
agents, continuing the expansion of a force that has increased by 85 
percent between fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997. I applaud 
the 20-percent increase over fiscal year 1997 funding of State criminal 
alien assistance--from $500 million to $600 million--to reimburse 
States and localities for the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens who 
commit criminal offenses. These costs impose an enormous burden on 
States and localities as a result of the Federal Government's inability 
to control the border.
  Control of the border is crucial also to our fight to stem the tide 
of illegal drugs coming into the United States. The State Department 
estimates that in 1996, 50-70 percent of cocaine, up to 80 percent of 
foreign grown marijuana, and 20-30 percent of heroin entered the United 
States from Mexico, across our southwestern border.
  In addition to controlling the importation of illegal drugs, this 
bill also addresses production within our borders. Methamphetamine is 
the fastest growing abused drug in the Nation. Emergency room 
admissions related to ``meth'' more than tripled between 1991 and 1994. 
Unfortunately, my State is so active in meth production that the DEA 
has listed California as a source country for the drug. H.R. 2267 
earmarks $30 million in COPS grants to States to combat meth 
production, including $18.2 million to the California Bureau of 
Narcotics Enforcement to assist its work in shutting down clandestine 
meth labs.
  We continue to fund the COPS Program, working toward the goal of 
putting 100,000 more police officers on the street by 2000. Already 
COPS grants have funded the hiring of 61,000 new officers, including 
over 3,000 new or redeployed officers in Los Angeles. We are seeing 
results from this and other anticrime efforts, with violent crime 
dropping 12.4 percent in 1995. Additionally, the subcommittee has 
recognized the need for increased flexibility in the application of 
grant money, providing $35 million for COPS technology grants to help 
law enforcement use officers more efficiently in investigating, 
responding to, and preventing crime.
  It is important to reiterate that addressing the Nation's crime 
problem requires a two-pronged approach involving both tough law 
enforcement and programs to prevent crime. While criminals must face 
sure punishment for their crimes, we must also be proactive. Once a 
crime is committed--once a person has been a victim of a crime--we have 
lost half the battle. H.R. 2267 provides over $280 million to help 
prevent crime, including nearly $238 million for juvenile justice and 
delinquency prevention. I strongly support this funding to steer our 
young people away from involvement with crime.
  I am pleased that H.R. 2267 adequately funds most State Department 
accounts and fully funds current year dues owed to international 
organizations. In the post-cold-war environment, U.S. diplomatic 
engagement is essential to world stability, economic growth, and 
democratization.

  This bill also begins to address the payment of U.S. arrears to the 
United Nations and other international institutions. These arrears are 
eroding both our credibility in the world community and our ability to 
press for important U.N. reforms. H.R. 2267 contains $54 million for 
international organizations arrears and $46 million for international 
peacekeeping arrears. These payments are an essential step toward 
fulfilling our obligations to international organizations.
  Notwithstanding my support today for moving H.R. 2267 forward, there 
are provisions of the bill I oppose and which I hope can be rectified. 
While the bill generously funds all law

[[Page H7784]]

enforcement agencies, the agency that enforces our civil rights laws--
the EEOC--is flat funded. This bill generously funds the legal 
activities of the Justice Department, but severely underfunds the 
agency that guarantees access to legal representation for the poor--
Legal Services Corporation funding has been cut from $283 million to 
$141 million. Finally, I believe that the provision related to the 
Census Bureau unnecessarily jeopardizes their ability to effectively 
administer Census 2000 by restricting its preparations.
  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been denied the small 
increase it requested. The EEOC is charged with enforcing our Nation's 
civil rights laws as they pertain to employment in both the private and 
public sectors. I share the committee's view that the agency's backlog 
is creating unacceptable delays in the resolution of discrimination 
cases. Although the agency under Chairman Gilbert Casellas has made 
significant progress in reducing its backlog, we need to ensure that 
these reductions were not one-time benefit. While I believe that the 
EEOC needs to more effectively track staff and resource usage, denying 
the agency a modest inflationary increase may only exacerbate the delay 
in resolution of these cases.
  This bill provides only $141 million for Legal Services Corporation, 
just over 40 percent of its $340 million request for fiscal year 1998 
and less than 50 percent of their $283 million fiscal year 1997 
appropriation. These cuts seriously damage the ability of poor people 
to seek redress through the legal system.
  In 1995 and 1996 the Congress placed restrictions on LSC's activities 
to address the concerns of members. LSC has also instituted reforms in 
its granting procedures that have resulted in more efficient delivery 
of its services. The agency is a model of efficient spending of scarce 
federal resources; its administrative costs represent a mere 3 percent 
of its appropriations. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Mollohan/Fox 
amendment, to increase Legal Services Corporation funding to $250 
million.
  Finally H.R. 2267's census provisions could seriously undermine 
preparation for the 2000 census. The bill, which allows the Census 
Bureau to spend only $100 million on census activities until an 
authorizing bill is enacted, may very well leave the Bureau unable to 
perform necessary activities such as dress rehearsals.
  We know that the 1990 census had an undercount. We know that 
minorities, people in rural areas, and the homeless were 
disproportionately undercounted. We know that the sampling methods 
developed by the Bureau of the Census to get a more accurate count have 
the support of respected scientific organizations--including the 
National Academy of Sciences. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Mollohan-Shays amendment and not block efforts to obtain the most 
accurate count possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2267 and look forward to 
continuing our work on problematic areas of this legislation.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Latham], one of the new members of our subcommittee who has 
done a great amount of work in formulating this legislation.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for the opportunity to speak. It has been a real privilege to 
be on this subcommittee under the chairman's leadership and to work in 
a bipartisan way to really address a lot of very, very critical 
problems that we have nationwide, but in particular for me in Iowa.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] mentioned methamphetamines, 
and to me, this is a horrible problem that is exploding in the Upper 
Midwest, and the work that we are doing in this bill will help us 
tremendously as far as enforcement, when we look at the tri-State drug 
task force we have in Sioux City and being able to beef up those 
efforts to deal with this problem that is going to be devastating to 
our young people and really change the whole fabric of society in our 
area. This is something that I am very proud that this bill addresses.
  Also, the question of more INS agents in our part of the country. A 
lot of people do not think Iowa has much of a problem. Well, the fact 
of the matter is we have a dramatic increase of illegals brought in by 
the attraction of certain industries, and we have been able to in this 
bill, after the completion of this bill, will have 12 INS agents in the 
State of Iowa where previously we have had none, and it is a severe 
problem. We will have a colloquy later on talking about INS and the 
problems we have.
  But this bill goes a long way toward addressing other concerns we 
have, obviously, with agriculture, as far as trade and small business; 
extremely important to us, and obviously, with the State Department, 
too, and our relationships around the world to be able to continue fair 
and equal trade is very important.
  Just maybe a second about the census. I believe that we have to have 
an actual count, that that is what the Constitution says, and this bill 
certainly follows what is constitutionally mandated.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  [Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of people who are afraid of 
the political costs of an accurate census. I think most Americans are 
afraid of the costs overall of an inaccurate census. As a result, there 
has been a great deal of misinformation about what the plans are for 
2000.
  Let me just take a moment tonight to try to set the record straight. 
Some opponents of sampling have said the census will not even try to 
count everyone. That is simply not true. The Bureau will make an 
unprecedented effort to count more people than ever before in the 
history of the Nation directly. The Bureau will send four pieces of 
mail to every household; first a letter explaining the census, and then 
the form itself, and then the postcard reminding people to fill out the 
form, and finally a second form just in case the first one was missed, 
and that is just for starters.

                              {time}  1800

  People can pick up census forms in hundreds of thousands of 
locations, post office, stores, libraries, churches, and they can turn 
in their responses by phone for the first time. This will be 
supplemented by a huge advertising campaign using television, radio, 
billboards and newspapers, outreach and promotion through schools and 
with community-based organizations. We will use people hired from 
within the community. For the first time, the Bureau is working with 
local governments to make sure the address lists are correct before the 
census starts.
  The Bureau is in the process of contacting all 39,000 local 
governments in this country asking for their help. Then and only then, 
after this unprecedented effort to count everyone by mail, will the 
census start going door-to-door, seeking those who still have not 
responded.
  But going door-to-door is not the most accurate way to count 
everybody. In fact, in 1990 the door-to-door effort resulted in a 
census that was wrong over 10 percent of the time. To count 35 percent 
of the country that did not mail back the census form 10 years ago, the 
Bureau had to hire over 400,000 people. Just the size of that work 
force alone guarantees that there will be some mistakes because of 
inexperience and lack of adequate training.
  More importantly, door-to-door work asking questions is a difficult 
and sometimes dangerous job. The Bureau has been working on this since 
1950. Morris Hanson and W. Edwards Demming did some experiments that 
showed that knocking on doors was less accurate than mail-out mail-
back, and the GAO agreed. Its evaluations of 1990 found that the error 
rate for people counted by mail was less than 3 percent compared to a 
rate nearly 10 times that for people who counted the census going door-
to-door.
  To overcome these problems, the Bureau developed a plan to improve 
the basic mail count and to improve the count of those who do not mail 
back their forms. That is the first time the sampling and statistical 
methods that I just described come in.
  The Bureau plans to conduct a sample to complete the count of 
nonresponding households in a process known as direct sampling. The 
process will allow the Bureau to make direct contact with 90 percent of 
the households in every census tract in every neighborhood across the 
country, an unprecedented level of direct counting.
  The Bureau will then apply the characteristics to the remaining 10 
percent of households based on information it has gathered on all the 
other households it has counted directly. In census tracts where the 
mail response was lower, the size of the sample will be higher.

[[Page H7785]]

  After the field work is complete and 100 percent of households have 
been included in the census, then the Bureau will conduct a second 
super-survey 5 times larger than ever before, 750,000 households, 
covering targeted census blocks in all 50 States, in order to check its 
previous work. It will use its best enumerators, with a new set of 
independent address lists, to make a final check of undercounts and 
overcounts. The results of that very precise, very fine-grained second 
survey will then be applied block by block to demographically similar 
areas across the country.
  It is this combination of methods, the old with the new, the outdated 
with the modern, the conventional with the more accurate, that stands 
the only chance to produce a better census in 2000. Without these 
methods, they can only fall back on prior procedures that in the past 
have failed to count everyone.
  Mr. Speaker, without the new methods, the Census Bureau can only fall 
back on procedures that have in the past failed to count everybody and 
that have failed to make the count more accurate. If we effectively 
keep the Bureau from using these methods, by preventing the Bureau from 
testing them in the dress rehearsal next year and cutting off the funds 
for them for an indeterminate period into the future, we will be saying 
to every community across the country that we do not care if the census 
misses people, and that is not an outcome that I think most Americans 
can support.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert].
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $70 million for NOAA's 
interannual and seasonal climate and global change research program, a 
$2 million increase over the current level, but at $4.9 million below 
the request. Concerns have been expressed that the committee's action 
did not include funding to continue the tropical ocean global 
atmosphere observing system known as TOGA. The TOGA observing system 
funds buoys across the equatorial Pacific to perform measurements that 
have proven invaluable to El Nino researchers. Scientists performing 
this research are concerned that the bill would prevent NOAA from 
continuing this critical program.
  Can the chairman assure us that the $4.9 million funding is included 
in this bill for the TOGA array?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising this 
issue so that I can eliminate any confusion over the matter. There has 
been some confusion.
  The bill provides $70 million for climate research and prediction 
activities. Of that amount, $4.9 million has been provided to continue 
the TOGA observation system, as well as a $2 million increase over the 
current funding level for additional climate research, including 
research into the El Nino phenomenon.
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for clarifying this matter.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Rogers for 
clarifying the funding for this important program, TOGA, which not only 
predicted the El Nino but also predicted the massive floods that we saw 
last year in the Northwest.
  I would also take this opportunity to thank you for including an 
increase of $2 million in your bill fro NOAA's climate research 
programs, including additional funds requested for the International 
Research Institute for Climate Prediction [IRI].
  The IRI is cohosted by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at U.C. 
San Diego, and the Lamont Doherty Earth Laboratory at Columbia 
University.
  The IRI provides experimental forecasts on seasonal-to-long-term time 
scales of changing physical conditions, such as ocean temperature, to 
predict rainfall. It then assesses the regional impacts of these 
variations. This information is then used to support practical 
decisionmaking in critical sectors such as agriculture, emergency 
response, and public health and safety.
  This funding increase will be used to improve regional forecasts, and 
to increase regional research and demonstration projects to explore 
impacts of these forecasts on specific areas. This information is 
increasingly important, as we are now learning with the onset of El 
Nino. However, the IRI does not focus on such applications here in the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you to explore how we might 
find additional support within the bill for the important research, 
separate from the IRI itself, which underlies the Climate Research 
Program. I recognize and appreciate the tight restrictions which you 
have had to work with in crafting your bill, and know the difficulties 
you face.
  However, given the importance of this forward-looking research, and 
the benefits which our own Nation can derive as a result down the road, 
I believe it is important that we take every advantage of this 
opportunity to expand our understanding in this field.
  As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, there are three specific functions 
within this program which would benefit from the additional funding 
which was originally requested by NOAA: Additional research to do 
seasonal-to-long-term forecasting for all of North America; beginning a 
regional applications process in the United States to make this 
forecasting useful to climate-sensitive regions, such as agricultural 
areas; and intensify the research effort into understanding long-term 
climate variability. Scientists now believe that long-term variability 
has as great an impact on North America as the El Nino.
  As the chairman knows, I originally was prepared to offer an 
amendment, along with my colleague, the gentlelady from San Jose, to 
add $4.9 million to this bill for the purpose of ensuring that the TOGA 
Program would continue. Given the chairman's earlier clarifications of 
the TOGA Program, however, I would not seek to offer the amendment at 
this time.
  But if the gentleman would be agreeable, I would like to work further 
with the chairman and our colleagues between now and the conference to 
ensure the stability of the underlying research base on this important 
topic.
  Mr. ROGERS. I would be happy to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the hard work of the 
gentlemen from California, Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Calvert. I do have 
concerns about the impact on other NOAA research. El Nino must be 
funded. I am eager to further understand the implications of what has 
been done here between now and tomorrow, in hopes that I can rise 
tomorrow in support of what has been outlined here.
  I look forward to some further clarification from staff between now 
and tomorrow morning. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Mollohan-
Shays amendment to permit the Census Bureau to continue planning for 
the 2000 census. I would just like to remind the House that the history 
of this Nation shows that the census has always failed to count some 
people, but, of course, we want to be sure that there is no significant 
undercount this time. But the undercount is always higher for African-
Americans than for any other group.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask Members to look at the data for the last 
six censuses, which we will see is being brought to our attention now. 
If Members will look at this particular chart, they will see that 
beginning in 1940, in each census the undercount has been more than 3 
percent larger than it was for whites. The undercount for blacks or 
African-Americans has been always more than 3 percent larger than it 
was for whites.
  If we look at these data all across, from 1940 up until now, there 
has been this very serious undercount, but it was greater in 1990 than 
any other time. It was like 4.4 percent higher among African-Americans 
at that time in 1990, here, if Members will note, than at any other 
time. The 1990 census

[[Page H7786]]

failed to count 1.4 million African-Americans.
  I do not think anyone in this country wants an undercount. They want 
the very best. They want everyone counted. It appears that the only way 
that can be done is to do sampling. History has proven this undercount, 
so why should we go back to some of the same flaws that we had in the 
1990 census?
  It also failed in 1990 to count 2.6 million whites, but the 
percentage of blacks that was not counted in 1990 was 5.7 percent, more 
so than with whites. It was much larger than the percentage of whites 
not counted; 1.3 percent more were not counted during the 1990 census.
  Not fully counting African-Americans in the census originated a long 
time ago with the Constitution. Article 1, section 2 of the 
Constitution that was ratified in 1788 provided African-Americans as 
three-fifths of a man. As a result, we were not counted correctly, even 
back then. But that was changed, so now we do have that corrected, the 
earlier misconception of the census.
  But this is really a debate about political power. We do not want the 
undercount to happen again. This was repealed in 1868 by the 14th 
amendment. We must continue now to be sure that this old legacy that 
was brought to us a long time ago does not repeat itself.
  Failing to count certain groups is not limited to blacks. I am 
appealing to the Congress, to the chairman and to the Members to be 
sure that the undercount we had in 1970, that we had in 1980, that we 
had in 1990, will not be repeated in the year 2000. We want everyone 
counted.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2267, the 1998 
Commerce-State-Judiciary appropriations bill. My colleague, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and my colleague, the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] have worked hard to draft a fair 
bill, and I commend them for their efforts.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, I would 
like to highlight just a few of the specific programs which this bill 
funds within the Immigration and Naturalization Service and which I 
strongly support.
  First, the bill, for the second year, provides funding for 1,000 
additional Border Patrol agents for fiscal year 1998 instead of the 500 
requested by the President. These new Border Patrol agents are vital to 
efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs, aliens, criminals, and 
terrorists into the United States.
  The bill also recognizes that the Border Patrol is not the only key 
to apprehending and removing illegal and criminal aliens. Additional 
funds need to be applied to interior enforcement: more investigators 
and special agents to apprehend illegal and criminal aliens, additional 
funding for the alien removal process, the expansion of detention space 
to hold aliens waiting to be removed, and additional funding of the 
special criminal alien removal program designed to remove criminal 
aliens as soon as they are released from prison.
  All of these functions need to be better executed by the INS. I share 
the hopes of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
State, and Judiciary that by providing the INS with these additional 
funds, as this bill does, there should no longer be any doubt that 
these programs are top priority matters to Congress and should also be 
top priority matters to the INS.
  The bill also recognizes and responds to the serious problems within 
INS's naturalization program. The program, known as Citizenship U.S.A., 
gave citizenship to criminals and aliens who were in deportation 
proceedings. These results were clearly the result of bad procedures 
and insecure fingerprint checks.
  H.R. 2267 eliminates non-law enforcement entities who formerly were 
able to take fingerprints. Businesses such as Pookies Parcel and Post 
and Juanita's Beauty Salon should not be in the business of taking 
fingerprints used to obtain the most valuable thing the United States 
could give, that of citizenship.
  The bill also requires that criminal checks be completed before 
naturalization takes place, a procedure too often overlooked in the 
first years of Citizenship U.S.A. I support this requirement. I also 
hope that as the naturalization procedures are improved and electronic 
fingerprint checks are implemented, items which my colleague, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has agreed to fund, that the 
waiting time for processing naturalization applications is 
significantly reduced.
  Also, the bill funds the Justice Department's audit of past 
improprieties in Citizenship U.S.A. and its efforts to denaturalize 
criminal aliens and aliens already in deportation proceedings. I thank 
my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations for their great 
efforts on funding the INS, and I ask my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1815

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Solomon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 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. 
2267), making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________