[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7786-H7801]
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. Solomon). 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 further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2267.
{time} 1815
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House
[[Page H7787]]
on the State of the Union for the further 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.
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] had 7 minutes remaining
and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] had 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
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. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for all of
his hard work and the chairman of this committee as well.
Let me acknowledge the importance of the moneys that have been
included in this particular bill for the juvenile prevention program or
effort that was initially started by the Riggs-Scott amendment. Let me
also acknowledge that we would like to see and hope to see Legal
Services Corporation fully funded, and I will be looking to support the
Fox-Mollohan amendment.
I also wanted to note that I look forward to working with both the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] on the Senate version of this bill, which
includes $500,000 for the establishment of a National Center for Study
and Prevention of Juvenile Crime and Delinquency, located at Prairie
View A&M University, located near Houston, TX.
We believe that prevention is worth a pound of cure, if you will, if
that is the correct metaphor, or in other words, it is worth spending
money for juvenile crime prevention. So I thank the gentlemen for
considering this funding for Prairie View A&M and working with me to
make sure that these funds are funded.
I listened to my colleague, the honorable gentlewoman from Florida
[Mrs. Meek] and I have to also comment on the census. I am really
disturbed that an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hastert] will ban sampling and is included in this legislation.
Statistical sampling is a scientific methodology that will make the
2000 census more accurate. Over 4,000 people were missed in the last
census, particularly those living in rural areas, children, and
minorities.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a political question ``How many people will
come to the United States Congress?'' This is a question of how many
Americans will we be able to serve as we work in the climate of a
balanced budget. How many do we know that are in need, that need
scholarships, that need education? How should the Government do its
business? By guessing? Or should it do it by accurate counting?
The Academy of Sciences, the American Statistical Association, the
GAO, and the census director under the Bush administration have all
recommended the use of statistical sampling to make the census more
accurate.
I urge my colleagues to join me in signaling their concerns over this
provision of H.R. 2267 by supporting the Mollohan-Shays amendment. This
amendment strikes the language added late last night by the Committee
on Rules and in its place adds language prohibiting use of any 1998
funds to make irretrievable plans or preparations for the use of
sampling or any other statistical method in taking the census for
purposes of congressional apportionment.
It is important to recognize that this amendment will also create a
board of observers for a fair and accurate census charged with the
function of observing and monitoring all aspects of the preparation and
execution of census 2000 to determine whether the process had been
manipulated in any way that biases the results in favor of any
geographic region, population growth, or political party.
How fair can we get, Mr. Chairman? This is a fair amendment in the
instance of having an oversight board. We are fair in the instance of
treating the American people fairly by saying every single person
deserves to be counted, the homeless person deserves to be counted, a
child needs to be counted. How can we serve this country if we do not
have the kind of results that sampling will bring about?
My colleagues, please vote to be able to have sampling in the year
2000.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts and concerns regarding
H.R. 2267, the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.
Let me first raise my objections to the census provisions of this
bill. Last night, the Rules Committee adopted a rule that automatically
adopted into the text of this bill an amendment offered by
Representative Hastert that will ban sampling and make the Census
Bureau's funding contingent on a full judicial review of its methods.
My colleagues, statistical sampling is a scientific methodology that
will make the 2000 census more accurate. Over 4 million people were
missed in the last census, particularly those living in rural areas,
children, and minorities. The Academy of Sciences, the American
Statistical Association, the GAO, and the census director under the
Bush administration have all recommended the use of statistical
sampling to make the census more accurate.
I urge my colleagues to join me in signaling their concerns over this
provision of H.R. 2267 by supporting the Mollohan-Shays amendment. This
amendment strikes the language added late last night by the Rules
Committee and in its place adds language prohibiting use of any 1998
funds to make irretrievable plans or preparations for the use of
sampling or any other statistical method in taking the census for
purposes of congressional apportionment. This same language is included
in the Senate-passed version of the bill.
Additionally, the Mollohan-Shays amendment will create a board of
observers for a fair and accurate census, charged with the function of
observing and monitoring all aspects of the preparation and execution
of census 2000 to determine whether the process has been manipulated in
any way that biases the results in favor of any geographic region,
population group, or political party. The Mollohan-Shays amendment
provides a fair and reasonable resolution to the controversy
surrounding the 2000 census.
Further, I must raise my strong objections to the provisions in H.R.
2267 which cut funding for the Legal Services Corporation in half,
leaving only $141 million for the entire program. A cut of this
magnitude would cripple the program and undermine the Federal
commitment to ensure that all Americans, regardless of income, have
access to the judicial system.
The third issue that I must raise with respect to H.R. 2267 is an
amendment that I will offer requiring the Justice Department to
contract with the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a study of computer-based technologies and other
approaches that could help to restrict the availability of child
pornographic images through electronic media, including the Internet
and on-line services. My amendment would also provide for the
identification of illegal pornographic images with the goal of
criminally prosecuting those purveyors of such photographic images to
children.
The goal of this study is to understand the technological
capabilities currently available for identifying digitized pornographic
images stored on a computer, network, or other computer communication
mediums by the use of software or other computer technologies.
While this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee, I
hope that my colleagues will join with me in its support to eliminate
the growing threat of pornographic images faced by our children today.
Finally, I hope to draw my colleagues' attention to funding for the
establishment of a National Center for the Study and Prevention of
Juvenile Crime and Delinquency at Prairie View A&M University, located
outside of Houston, TX. The Senate has included $500,000 for this
center in its version of the bill.
The National Center would fill some very important functions: First,
conducting academic programs, including continuing education and
training for professionals in the juvenile justice field; second
conducting policy research; and third, developing and assisting with
community outreach programs focused on the prevention of juvenile
violence, crime, drug use, and gang-related activities.
Studies show that prevention is far more cost-effective than
incarceration in reducing the rates of juvenile crime.
[[Page H7788]]
A study by the Rand Corp., titled ``Diverting Children From a Life of
Crime, Measuring Costs and Benefits,'' is the most recent comprehensive
study done in this area. It is clear that juvenile crime and violence
can be reduced and prevented, but doing so will require a long-term
vigorous investment. The Rand study determined that early intervention
programs can prevent as many as 250 crimes per $1 million spent. In
contrast, the report said investing the same amount in prisons would
prevent only 60 crimes a year.
Children hurting children on the streets of our Nation is costly for
the moral fabric of our society and the burden on our government.
Public safety is now becoming one of the most significant factors
influencing the cost of State and local governments. We can begin to
bring those costs down and make both shortterm and longterm positive
differences in the lives of our young people by targeting the
prevention of juvenile crime.
In Texas, the historically black colleagues and universities are
forging ahead. The Juvenile Justice Center at Prairie View A&M
University will become a State and national resource. It will perform a
vital collaborative role by focusing on measures that target the
prevention of juvenile violence, crime, delinquency, and disorder. The
university will provide comprehensive teaching, research, and public
service programs. There is no single answer to this problem, but this
center will be a start to bridging the programs that work for the State
of Texas and other States.
It is my understanding, through conversations that my staff have held
with committee staff, that Chairman, Rogers and ranking member Mollohan
agree that funding for the Juvenile Justice Center at Prairie View
should be incorporated into the conference report. I would like very
much to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their
support of this important Juvenile Justice Prevention Center.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum], the very able and hard working chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers] for yielding me the time, and I want to take the opportunity to
commend him on the bill that the gentleman has produced along with the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Overall, it is an excellent product. I particularly am concerned and
happy with the portion of it that deals with the criminal justice
system and specifically want to talk for a few minutes about the
juvenile crime moneys that are in this bill.
For the very first time, there is a new program being created that is
going on in concert with H.R. 3, that was passed by this body in May,
to help repair the juvenile justice systems that are broken in this
country in the very States.
This is a $300 million grant program which is in this bill that would
go to the States to use as they see fit to work with their juvenile
authorities and to spend what they need for more detention centers or
for more prosecutors or judges or whatever they want to, prevention,
whatever it might be that is involving the juvenile justice system
itself.
What we have seen all too much in the last few years is that
juveniles are committing a lot of the violent crime in this country. In
fact, they are the highest, as a group, the highest percentage of
violent crimes committed by juveniles. More murders by 18-year-olds,
more rapes by 17-year-olds, and a lot of shocking numbers on the
increase in violent crime in this group.
The experts have told us that the reason why a lot of this is
occurring right now is because there are no consequences in most of the
juvenile justice systems around the country. Kids will go and commit
misdemeanor crimes, vandalism, going into the homes or stores or spray
painting graffiti on a warehouse wall. And then because of an
overworked juvenile justice system, in many, many jurisdictions, they
do not get the kind of punishment that they should be getting for that,
community service or whatever it may be. In fact, many times the police
do not even take the kids in before the juvenile justice system because
they know nothing is going to happen to them.
So repairing this broken system is very, very important. What we have
proposed in the underlying law is that if you pass muster, if the State
assures the Attorney General of the United States that they have done
four things, then they can get this money to spend as they want to on
their juvenile justice system.
Those four things are very simple: That they assure the Attorney
General that if a juvenile is 15 years of age or older in that State
and has committed a murder or a rape or an assault with a gun, that
they will permit, not require, but permit the prosecutor to prosecute
the juvenile as an adult; No. 2, and I think this is the most important
thing, that the State has established a system of graduated sanctions
and that it will punish juveniles for the very first delinquent act and
for every one thereafter in a graduated sanction fashion to put
consequences back into the system; that the State assures the Attorney
General that it will have a recordkeeping system if the juvenile has
committed a felony and it is the second offense the juvenile has
committed so we can keep those records instead of destroying them and
know if the juvenile is a really bad apple, as unfortunately many of
them are; and that there is a system to assure the accountability of
parents in terms of those orders the juvenile court may give to them to
help supervise the child.
If that is the case, then, as I said, the $300 million could be spent
on just about anything that anybody wants to, for more prosecutors, or
whatever it is.
I am just exceedingly pleased with this bill and this provision in
the bill, and I strongly support it. Again, I want to thank the
chairman for his work and thank him for the opportunity to let me speak
about it tonight.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to add my voice of support for the
Mollohan-Shays amendment. I think it is very important for us to
examine the question of the census and the count that we do to ensure
the constitutional mandate of an accurate census count.
Why would we be involved in a debate about whether or not we count or
want to count all Americans? Why would we be in a debate about whether
or not we would use the best method to do that? I certainly do not
understand why anybody would want to deny the most accurate count as
mandated by the Constitution of the United States.
It is no question that this is constitutional, that we can use this
statistical method that has been used in the past. The Department of
Justice, under Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton, have all concluded
and it has been confirmed by our court system, that we can use sampling
as a way of ensuring an accurate count.
Why do we need to use sampling? Because 10 percent of the count was
wrong in 1990, an error rate of 26 million people who were either
missed, counted twice, or counted in the wrong place. So it is very
important that we do not repeat what happened in 1990, but we use
statistical sampling so that we can get that accurate count that is
mandated.
Then it is a civil rights issue. The undercount is unfair to some
groups because some groups are missed more than others. The African-
Americans are 7 times as likely to be missed as whites, and it showed
in the undercount in 1990, the highest ever recorded of people missed
or miscounted. Equal representation is extremely important for African-
Americans because it is a civil rights issue. If in fact we are
undercounted, we are not counted, we will not be able to exercise our
rights under the law.
Three separate panels that were convened by the National Academy of
Sciences recommended the use of sampling to supplement their
traditional counting. Some may have concluded that this is a political
question, that there are those who believe that if we do an accurate
count, we are going to get those people in the cities, those people in
the rural communities that some would rather not have counted. I just
cannot imagine anybody that
[[Page H7789]]
would conclude it is in the best interest of America to have anybody
not counted.
We know that in the final analysis, if we are about the business of
justice, freedom, and equality, if we are about the business of wanting
equal representation for all of our people, if we truly want to do the
job that the Constitution mandates, we will do everything that we can
to ensure an accurate count. One can only do that with sampling.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will inform Members that the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 4 minutes remaining and the right to close
and that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers] for yielding. I very much appreciate the Commerce, State,
Justice appropriations bill. There are several things in there of
special interest to me.
One is $5 million for the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, which is truly critical funding for the Nation's primary
resource for child protection.
Also, something else I was interested in is ``no frills'' prison
language restricting Federal funds from being spent on prisoner
amenities such as martial arts instruction, weight rooms, in-cell
television, expensive electrical instruments.
I also appreciate the NOAA funding as it pertains to the Chesapeake
Bay Restoration Program, which I think is vitally important for that
area and some of the troubled water areas we have on the East Coast at
the present time.
Finally, the manufacturing extension program, which is sort of a new
program, but it is the program which has become I think a cost
effective, Federal-State, public-private partnership that helps small
and midsized American manufacturers to become modernized to compete in
the demanding global marketplace.
These are just four different measures which this committee listened
to and which I think can improve life in America. And I am very
thankful to all the members of the committee who helped put this
together.
{time} 1830
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan
Mollohan-Shays amendment. I rise to talk about and point out to this
House what I think is the civil rights issue of the 1990's, the right
to be counted in the census.
The majority leadership has expressed concern that the data obtained
in the census might be manipulated. The Mollohan-Shays amendment
addresses that concern by setting up a three-member panel which would
ensure that the results are tamperproof.
The new language of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] which
was added last night, I must point out, is no solution. Allowing the
Supreme Court to rule on Census 2000 may sound like a just resolution,
after all, who can argue with the Supreme Court, but what might look
like a fair compromise is really a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Even an expedited Court decision could take up to a year, and that is
much too much time. When a year has passed and the Court rules, as
courts have in the past, that statistical sampling is constitutional,
it will be too late. When the Court was asked to make an expedited
review on the line-item veto, it took 14 months. The flag burning
expedited review took 10 months. An expedited review on the census
would push preparations for the most fair and accurate count ever far
past important deadlines.
My colleagues who oppose an accurate count know that a lengthy delay
means certain death. A fair and accurate count is the cornerstone of
our democracy. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Mollohan-
Shays amendment to ensure a fair and accurate census count for the year
2000.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his consideration
and also the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking
member.
The fiscal year 1997 House report and conference report on Justice
Department appropriations included language urging the Department of
Justice within funds available for Byrne grants to give favorable
consideration to funding for the community security program of the
Local Initiative Support Corporation. As a result, Justice is now
working with LISC to form partnerships in a number of communities in
which local community-based organizations are willing to work with law
enforcement officials to promote a more livable neighborhood. Using
funds from private philanthropic organizations and corporations, LISC
has had great success in promoting local community security efforts in
New York and Seattle. There is great interest in this program in my
State, and I am particularly pleased that LISC is working in Toledo,
OH. It is my hope that Justice will once again be asked to give
proposals from LISC favorable consideration.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the
attention of the committee. I support community-based initiatives to
crime prevention and urge the Department to give favorable
consideration to continue funding this program.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Over the last 3 years, the ATP and other public-private partnerships
have been at the center of partisan legislative debates over the proper
role of Government in technology development--despite the fact that the
vast majority of these programs were begun in the Reagan administration
and strongly supported in the Bush administration. In the past few
months, we have once again returned to a consensus on the Advanced
Technology Program [ATP]. This bipartisan consensus was clear in May of
this year when the House passed a noncontroversial 2-year authorization
of the ATP program as part of H.R. 1274, the NIST Authorization Act.
This amendment, unfortunately, threatens to shatter consensus once
again.
There was bipartisan agreement on the authorization bill because of a
number or reforms made to the ATP. Some of these reforms were initiated
by the Science Committee in the authorization bill and others were
initiated by Secretary Daley in response to congressional concerns.
These changes include: First, putting more emphasis on joint ventures
and consortia--this has advantaged small- and medium-size single
applicants and deemphasized awards to large companies. Already almost
half of ATP awards have gone to small business; and more than 100
universities are involved in about 150 ATP projects. Second, increasing
the cost-share ratio for large, Fortune 500, single applicant companies
to 60 percent--ATP now has one of the highest cost-share ratios of any
Government/industry program. Third, ensuring that ATP does not fund
projects which can be wholly supported by private capital. Fourth,
encouraging State participation in ATP awards--ATP joint ventures can
now be led by States and State-sponsored nonprofit institutions. Fifth,
building upon the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Technology--EPSCoT will improve technology development and diffusion in
the 18 States underrepresented in Federal R&D funding.
These changes preserve the fundamental mission of the program--
providing funding for the breakthrough ideas whose commercialization
horizon often fails to attract the attention of capital markets. These
changes make ATP stronger and more viable by encouraging a greater
diversity of partnerships. And I want to stress that ATP always has
been and will continue to be a wholly merit-driven program based on
peer-review.
In short, the House has already voted to support the authorizing
committee in reforming and strengthening the ATP. No amendments to
reduce ATP funding were offered during either the committee's or the
House's consideration of the authorizing legislation. An appropriations
bill is not the place to destroy this carefully crafted consensus.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, which
includes increased funding
[[Page H7790]]
for crucial initiatives like the COPS program, juvenile crime and
prevention programs, and Violence Against Women Grants.
But I am disappointed that the bill does not fully fund the
President's request for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This issue is
particularly important to me because of a horrible tragedy that
occurred in my district earlier this year.
On April 3, 1997, Correction Officer Scott Williams, a decorated
marine who served in Desert Storm, was brutally attacked and killed at
the U.S. penitentiary in Lompoc, CA. His death has forever changed the
lives of his wife, Kristy, their two very small children, Kaitlin and
Kallee, and this small hardworking community.
Scott's tragic death is a constant reminder to his fellow officers of
the terrible danger in which they work every day. This Congress must do
all that it can to ensure that these brave men and women are given the
resources they need to do their jobs safely.
I have been out to the Lompoc penitentiary numerous times and I have
spoken with Warden Rardin and many of the correctional officers and
staff. We should be doing more to support these hardworking men and
women who are charged with keeping America's most dangerous criminals
locked up and off our streets.
These heroic men and women work in some of the most dangerous working
environments in the country. We must pay them a decent salary, provide
that there is a sufficient number of officers on duty at all times, and
give them the tools to do their jobs in a safe and humane manner. To do
otherwise is irresponsible.
As our prison population continues to rise, adequate funding for the
salaries, benefits, and protection of correctional officers has never
been more important. Scott and his fellow officers protected us and
continue to protect us day after day. It is now our turn to protect
them. I will continue to support these dedicated men and women and I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a provision
within the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary
appropriations bill which provides full funding for the Small Business
Administration's Small Business Development Center [SBDC] Program.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that in my State of Vermont, and all across
the country, small businesses are creating the lion's share of new
jobs. And we should be doing more to help those who are most ready to
create and invest here at home in our national economy.
The SBDC Program is one example where a small Federal investment has
paid for itself many times over. With limited Federal funds, SBDC's
have been able to leverage additional non-Federal funds in support of
their mission and to forge very strong partnerships with State and
local government, education, and business leaders to provide a unique
array of local counseling, training, and financial services that would
not otherwise be attainable in the private sector to small businesses,
especially those employing fewer than 25 employees and the self-
employed.
Ultimately, SBDC's pay off in the form of job creation and new
economic development. The SBDC Program also generates increased
revenues from a broader base of income and sales tax returns from
thousands of new or more profitable small businesses that are helped by
SBDC's.
Mr. Chairman, the SBDC Program has been very successful in Vermont.
In their 1996 annual survey of 1,400 clients, the Vermont SBDC revealed
sales increases of almost $83 million, and the creation of 1,750 jobs
for Vermont--1,350 full-time and 450 part-time, at average hourly rates
of $9.85 and $6.95. Reviewing the results of the survey, the Vermont
tax commissioner validated a conservative return of over $1.2 million
directly into the State treasury in income and sales taxes. This
equates to a 4-to-1 return on the Federal dollars.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately earlier this year the President's budget
proposed to cut funding for SBDC's by 24 percent--from $73.5 million to
$57.5. This cut would have been particularly devastating for smaller
States, such as Vermont, which barely have the resources to meet the
current demand for services. I opposed this cut, and wrote a letter to
Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, requesting that funding for the
SBDC's be sustained at its current level, including a small adjustment
for inflation. I am pleased to report that I was joined on my letter to
the chairman by 94 Members of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased that the chairman and the
subcommittee responded to this bipartisan effort by fully funding the
SBDC Program for fiscal year 1998, including a $2-million increase for
inflation. I urge all of my colleagues to support SBDC's by supporting
this provision during floor consideration of the Commerce, Justice,
State, Judiciary appropriations bill.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer-Cardin-
Etheridge amendment to H.R. 2267, the fiscal year 1998 Commerce,
Justice, State Appropriations Act. This amendment will add $3 million
to the National Ocean Service Account of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] to respond effectively to Pfiesteria,
and Pfiesteria-like conditions, along the Eastern Seaboard.
As you know, Pfiesteria is a single-celled organism which in certain
stages, produces a toxin that kills fish and may have human health
effects. In several cases now under investigations, individuals
reported that they become ill after direct exposure to the organism's
toxins. It was first linked to massive fish kills in North Carolina
waters in 1988. In North Carolina alone, over a billion fish have been
killed as a result of Pfiesteria. In light of recent findings, North
Carolina has set up a toll-free hot line and organized a panel of
experts to review how North Carolina should respond to future fish
kills.
Chemical analysis is the key to other needed research that will
answer more specific questions about health impacts. More funding is
critically needed to augment the research that North Carolina has
already begun on characterization and analysis of the Pfiesteria toxin.
Presently, NOAA has the mechanisms in place to study and assess the
causes and possible controls of Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-like
conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a
cost-effective measure, and it will enable NOAA to assist States from
North Carolina to Delaware effected by this micro-organism.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that any amendment
otherwise in order under clause 2(f) of rule XXI that affects a
paragraph in title I, and the item Legal Services Corporation, be in
order at a later point in the reading of the bill notwithstanding that
the affected paragraph of title I may have been read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in part 1
of House Report 105-264 is adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as an original bill for further amendment under the 5-minute
rule.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of the report, if offered by
the Member designated in the report, which may amend portions of the
bill not yet read for amendment. The amendments printed in part 2 of
the report may be offered only by a Member designated in the report
and, except for amendment No. 1, may be offered only at the appropriate
point in the reading of the bill. Amendments in part 2 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.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that has been
printed in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be
considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2267
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, 1998, and for other purposes, namely:
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hyde
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order pursuant
by the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H7791]]
Part 2, Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hyde:
Page 116, strike line 16 and all that follows through line
2 on page 117 and insert the following:
SEC. 616. ATTORNEYS FEES AND OTHER COSTS IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL
CASES.
During fiscal year 1997 and in any fiscal year thereafter,
the court, in any criminal case pending on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act, shall award, and the United
States shall pay, to a prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and other
litigation costs, unless the court finds that the position of
the United States was substantially justified or that other
special circumstances make an award unjust. Such awards shall
be granted pursuant to the procedures and limitations
provided for an award under section 2421 of title 28, United
States Code. Fees and other expenses awarded under this
provision to a party shall be paid by the agency over which
the party prevails from any funds made available to the
agency by appropriation. No new appropriations shall be made
as a result of this provision.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and a Member opposed will each control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons for being proud to be an
American, one of the reasons I ran for Congress, one of the reasons I
studied law was to try and achieve justice for people. Justice is what
is your due. It is not being cheated, it is not being defrauded, and it
is certainly not being pushed around.
I have learned in a long life that people do get pushed around, and
they can be pushed around by their government. I was very late coming
to that decision, but I learned that people in government, exercising
government power are human beings, like anybody else, and they are
capable of error, they are capable of hubris, they are capable of
overreaching, and yes, on very infrequent occasions they are capable of
pushing people around. And so when something like that happens, it is
doubly shocking because you have no place to turn. If the Government,
your last resort, is your oppressor, you really have no place to turn.
I am one who is hopeful and optimistic about the Government. I am
very proud of my government. I think on the whole it tries very hard to
do justice for its citizens. But occasionally it lapses, as I say,
because it is made up of human beings.
We have a law called the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides
in a civil case if the Government sues you, and you prevail, if the
Government cannot prove substantial justification in bringing the suit,
you are entitled to have attorney's fees and costs reimbursed. That is
justice. I do not say the Government, when they bring a civil suit
against anybody or everybody, has to always win to be justified in
bringing the suit, but if the suit was not substantially justified, in
other words, if it was an abuse of process, if it was frivolous, if it
was malicious, then the victim, the defendant who has prevailed, is
entitled to attorney's fees, very modest, $125 an hour. But that is the
law, and it has been the law for 17 years. There are cases interpreting
it, interpreting what substantial justification for the Government to
bring the litigation is, and we have had 17 years of successful
interpretation and reinforcement of that law.
Now, it occurred to me, if that is good for a civil suit, why not for
a criminal suit? What if Uncle Sam sues you, charges you with a
criminal violation, even gets an indictment and proceeds, but they are
wrong. They are not just wrong, they are willfully wrong, they are
frivolously wrong. They keep information from you that the law says
they must disclose. They hide information. They do not disclose
exculpatory information to which you are entitled. They suborn perjury.
They can do anything. But they lose the litigation, the criminal suit,
and they cannot prove substantial justification. In that circumstance,
as in the Equal Access to Justice Act for civil litigation, you should
be entitled to your attorney's fees reimbursed and the costs of
litigation, again at the same modest rate. That, my friends, is
justice.
If you were to take a piece of paper and sit down and say, what is
the most unjust thing in all of the law, you would have to say when you
are pursued by somebody, and you are ultimately vindicated, and you
have to swallow what can be bankrupting costs. You mortgage your house,
you mortgage your future, and you may have won the case, but you have
really lost the war because you are bankrupt. So this simply says to
Uncle Sam, look, if you are going to sue somebody, and civilly we have
had that for 17 years, under my amendment criminally, and you cannot
prove substantial justification after the case is over, and the verdict
is not guilty, then the prosecution pays something toward the
attorney's fees of the victim. That is justice. It may be rough
justice, but it is substantial justice. That is what we are attempting
to do.
Now, in the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] having
in mind the case of someone we all know who went through hell, if I may
use the term, for many years of being accused and finally prevailed at
enormous expense, one he will never get out from under, but that
brought to mind these circumstances and what could we do about them.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] decided to put in the bill
an amendment that said for a Congressman or a member of the
Congressman's staff, if they are sued by the Government criminally and
they prevail, the Government owes them attorney's fees.
I felt that was inappropriate. First of all, it is too narrow. It
only covers Congressmen and congressional staff. If it is good enough
for them, it ought to be good enough for any citizen. Second, it was
too broad, because you only had to win your case to be entitled to
attorney's fees. It would seem to me that is not enough. You need a
higher threshold. What you need is to have a case that was not
substantially justified, one that should not have been brought. That
finding is made by the trial judge who has heard the case. The
Government must prove substantial justification or you get attorney's
fees. It seems to me this is just.
The Justice Department does not like it, of course. Who would like
having to prove substantial justification? But if you are interested in
justice, if you are the defendant and you have this panoply of lawyers
and resources and FBI against you, and not only are they wrong, but
they have been substantially unjustified, they have been frivolous,
there is no justification substantially for bringing the suit, I am not
asking for damages, I am not asking that the prosecutor go to jail or
be held in contempt of court, although were I the judge, I would be
interested in hearing those arguments if the Government's case was not
substantially justified, but we are asking that you repair the wound,
the economic wound, somewhat by awarding attorney's fees. This is my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1845
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, every Member of this body has enormous respect for the
gentleman from Illinois and the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, but I must observe that this is an extraordinary matter of
policy to attempt to bring up for the first time as an amendment to an
appropriations bill and, I think, wholly out of the judicious character
with which the gentleman typically manages the business of his
committee. I believe it is correct that this has been subject to no
hearings, no opportunity for representatives of the Justice Department
or the criminal defense bar or anyone else to really explicate the
implications, the consequences, the costs of a significant change in
the way the United States of America would manage its criminal justice
responsibilities. Whatever the underlying merits of finding some way to
make whole persons that may be unjustly prosecuted by the Justice
Department and the law enforcement agencies of the United States when
rarely but occasionally that happens, to attempt in the context of a
floor amendment on an appropriations bill to address this issue I think
does enormous disservice to the kind of standards of careful and
thoughtful and considered work that this House ought to be doing.
[[Page H7792]]
It is for that reason among other substantive reasons that the
administration has in its statement of policy on this indicated that,
were this amendment to be adopted and be part of the final forum of
this Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill when presented to the
President, that he would veto the bill, and let me just read briefly
from the administration's statement.
I quote:
Opposes the Hyde amendment that would require the United
States to pay attorney fees and litigation costs to
``prevailing parties'' in Federal criminal cases unless the
government can demonstrate the case was substantially
justified. This provision would have a profound and harmful
impact on the Federal criminal justice system.
And listen to this.
It would create a monetary incentive for criminal defense
attorneys to generate additional litigation in cases in which
prosecutors have in good faith brought sound charges, tying
up the scarce time and resources that are vital to bringing
criminals to justice.
Think, for instance, what this would mean in areas of the criminal
law that are already particularly difficult matters for prosecutors to
successfully bring to conviction: rape cases, child molestation cases,
in which one runs into reluctant witnesses and all sorts of difficulty
in evidentiary and proof matters, cases brought under the Violence
Against Women Act in particular. Do we really want to set up a system
in which we are giving incentive to successful criminal defendants who
have prevailed against such prosecution to tie up the limited
resources, and limited they are in the United States criminal justice
system, tie up those resources with these kinds of cases?
I would stipulate that we need to address the question of injustice,
as rare and occasional as it may be, that the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary brings to the House underlying this
amendment. But let us do it in the regular order, let us do it through
the good offices of the gentleman's committee with an opportunity for
interested parties to be heard, for the representatives of the Justice
Department to make their case about the real consequences of this kind
of very, very significant change in national policy. We cannot do
justice to this in this setting this evening under these circumstances.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Skaggs], puts the best possible face on, in my judgment, a very
untenable argument. He takes refuge in procedure, that this is the
inappropriate vehicle to bring this forward. Injustice needs remedy and
one seizes their opportunities when they come along. My amendment was
just stated as a result of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]
putting on this bill an amendment to reimburse attorney fees to
Congressmen and their staffs if they prevail in a criminal suit, and I
said no, that is too narrow, it only takes care of Congressmen and
their staffs. It ought to protect anybody who is abused by a suit that
is not substantially justified.
Say, I would hope this would take some time and resources from the
Justice Department. They might think twice about bringing cases for
which there is no substantial justification. If someone is a prosecutor
and they are going to wrench somebody out of their job and their home
and put them on trial as a criminal, there ought to be enough in the
case that it is substantially justified.
To say one does not want them to waste their resources on cases that
are not substantially justified, what about the resources of the
citizen who has been put through the hoops? What is the remedy, if not
this, for somebody who has been unjustly, maliciously, improperly,
abusively tried by the Government, by the faceless bureaucrats who hire
a law firm or get a U.S. attorney looking for a notch on his gun.
And I am for law enforcement; I am about as law and order as one can
get around here, but I have seen abuses, and I know people who think
because it is public power it is being wielded in the public interest.
No, not necessarily. But when they transgress they ought to help pay
the attorney fees to make the innocent defendant partly whole.
I remember the former Secretary of Labor, Ray Donovan, who was
prosecuted and again and again and again and won every time, and when
it was all over he said to himself, ``Where do I go to get back my
reputation?'' Well, one cannot get that back, but, at least, if the
Government tries to bankrupt someone because of attorney fees, they
ought to pay that.
I am for law enforcement, I am for criminals going to jail, I am for
the Justice Department prosecuting criminals, but not without
substantial justification, and if my colleagues are against my
amendment, they are saying let the Government do whatever it wants, and
if they cannot prove substantial justification, tough luck.
I do not buy that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just quickly and in response to the gentleman's point,
and then I will yield time to the gentlewoman from Michigan, I think
the gentleman proves too much. Were the words ``malicious'' and
``abusive'' in his amendment, and maybe those are criteria that also
ought to be introduced, it would be a different matter. Those were not
standards that are in his amendment although they were certainly the
standards invoked in his rhetoric. But it is exactly those kinds of
questions about which we need a more deliberative examination of this
proposed change than is admitted this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this particular
amendment, and while I join the gentleman from Illinois in several of
his endeavors, including his concerns about forfeitures in this country
and the business of the IRS, and have been on his bills in both
Congresses, I do not agree with him on this particular issue.
Section 616 of the bill before us creates a new class of citizenship
exclusively for Members of Congress and their staffs by extending to
them the rights to reimbursement of legal expenses when a Justice
Department prosecution fails to convict them. This would be alone among
all American citizens, only Members of Congress and their staffs.
Now my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hyde], proposes to replace that language in 616 with an amendment to
extend these privileges to any defendant who is successful in defending
themselves in Federal court. The claim is that this amendment will
produce greater equity.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield? I will give her
some time if she yields on that point.
Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not extend this protection to anybody
who is successful in Federal court. They are successful and the
Government cannot substantially justify. That is not a tough threshold,
that is not a tough threshold under the Government to meet.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I will speak to that threshold.
While the claim is that this amendment will produce greater equity by
eliminating differences between the treatment of Members and ordinary
citizens and greater efficacy within the Justice Department, I believe
it will do neither. Frankly, I believe this new proposal, when
distilled down, is nothing more than a variation on the protect Members
theme that is already written into this bill. While the language of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] allows the court to deny
reimbursement if it believes the prosecution's case is substantially
justified, Members can and will claim that their prosecution was
politically motivated.
The words of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] support the
suspicion. He argued in his written testimony to the Committee on Rules
that there is, quote, a legitimate fear that a prosecutor could become
politically involved with the particular case, could feel so compelled
to win that he forgets his duty is not to win but to ensure justice.
But, Mr. Chairman, it is a rare defendant that could claim that his
prosecution was politically motivated. Only Members and other public
officials will travel the path that this amendment lays out.
[[Page H7793]]
Concerns that this bill is really about Members are heightened in
that this proposal was not introduced in previous Congresses and only
surfaced after the angry glare of public opinion focused on H.R. 2267
and its existing Member exemption language. But even if one can accept
the arguments that this proposal is about protecting all Americans, it
appears to be unnecessary.
Our judicial system already provides many protections to seal
defendants from frivolous cases. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]
speaks to the civil court system but not to the criminal court system.
If a case has been prosecuted, a judge has already decided, most likely
several times, that the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to
warrant trial, and as the Justice Department points out in their letter
to Mr. Hyde, in every Federal felony case a grand jury has already
determined the adequacy of the prosecution's case.
Similarly, defendants are already protected by the greatest force of
justice we have in this country, the U.S. Constitution. The fifth
amendment requirement of probable cause provides abiding and
unambiguous protection for criminal defendants. The proposal of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] offers nothing more in terms of
deterring errant prosecution. It simply creates a forum for Members of
Congress to argue that they have been unjustly targeted for political
reasons.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this proposal is not only unnecessary,
it is most likely harmful. Members must be mindful of the chilling
effect legislation of this kind could have on Federal prosecutions. The
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has argued that politics should not
be a part of the prosecutorial calculus. Agreed, but should money,
given that the money at issue here comes from the Justice Department,
budget losses under this amendment would decrease the Justice
Department's ability to pursue other prosecutions and weaken their
resolve to pursue tough but sometimes very necessary cases.
Likewise, the potential of reimbursement creates a form of
prosecutorial poker wherein wealthy defendants who can and do spend
large amounts of money on dream team defense counsel can raise the
stakes regarding their possible prosecution.
And last but not least, please consider the after-the-fact exercise
required under this bill to determine justification for prosecution. As
the Justice Department points out, justification may not be evident on
the trial record. There may be evidence that was relied upon in good
faith by the prosecution in coming to its decision to prosecute, but
was later suppressed at trial; there may be disclosure or required
disclosure and compromise of confidential sources or law enforcement
techniques, particularly when the Justice Department is dealing with
organized crime and conspiracy cases. Likewise, we could find
situations where the Justice Department must compel testimony from
children who have been victims of abuse or pornography because they did
not originally testify, but the prosecution relied upon their
information. Similarly, if we are dealing with espionage or national
security, we could force disclosure of classified information or, worse
yet, we could create a situation where Justice declines to prosecute
for fear of having to reveal information of a classified nature, which
in fact then gives those kinds of defendants a negotiating room that
most defendants do not enjoy.
Clearly this is not the sort of proposal that we should pass after
just 30 minutes of discussion. It would work a fundamental change in
our legal system and, according to the Department of Justice, would
pose a substantial obstacle to the accomplishment of their essential
mission.
I would urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, the judge makes the decision; the U.S.
attorney does not, the jury does not. The judge who has heard the case
has heard all the evidence. Then, after the trial is over and the
verdict is in, the judge then listens to the Government and says,
``What was the substantial justification for bringing this suit?'' So
the judge decides.
As for yielding secrets and classified information, that has been
taken care of in the courts for many years. The judge can hear the
evidence in camera by himself. Nothing needs to be publicly disclosed.
Probable cause is not the same as substantial justification. The
cases recite that. There are ninth circuit cases, there are all sorts
of litigation in the Equal Access for Justice Act, 17 years of that
which say that, ``You may have probable cause, you may have an
indictment, but you're not required as the prosecutor to produce
exculpatory evidence, only evidence of guilt.''
{time} 1900
So the two concepts are dissimilar. So that does not count.
The gentlelady said the Constitution will protect us all.
The Constitution protects you, but it will not pay your bills. That
Constitution you carry in your pocket, the landlord will not take that
and your lawyer will not take that. They want to get paid with cash.
When the Government sues you and, by the way, you seem to have sympathy
for everybody in this picture but the victim, who has been sued and the
Government cannot substantially justify the lawsuit. I really wish you
had some imagination and could imagine yourself getting arrested,
getting indicted, what happens to your name, to your family, and the
Government has a case it cannot substantially justify. They do not need
to defend against malice or hardness of heart or anything like that,
just substantial justification. They do not have to win.
The fact that I picked this time and we have not had hearings, that
is just a dodge. This is about as simple a concept as there is. We have
had it and we have been satisfied with it in civil litigation. I am
simply applying the same situation to criminal litigation.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I just was responding to the gentleman's
comment by I believe Mr. Skaggs and I personally and wondered what
information the gentleman had about whether we could or could not
understand what it would be like to be a criminal defendant, whether we
could or could not rely on any personal experience?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know the
gentlewoman's personal experience. Most people are not indicted by the
U.S. attorney. But I can imagine, and I know people who have been, what
a shattering experience it is.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
what we know is most people are not indicted by a U.S. attorney. Of
those that are and prosecuted, 87 percent are convicted. The question
is why are we pursuing this particular bill and what indication there
is----
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 percent that were not, and if
the litigation against them was not substantially justified, we are not
talking about a lot of money to give them justice, are we?
Ms. RIVERS. Do we have any indication at this point how many of that
13 percent are substantially unjustified and whether or not there is
actually a need for this kind of proposal? And would that not in fact
come out in a hearing and help us all make better decisions?
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let us pass this law and
then we will have some experience and see how many cases are brought
that they cannot prove substantial justification. To take the
gentlewoman's version of things, every case is substantially justified.
I am telling Members in the real world lives are ruined, people are
bankrupted, and it is not just, and we have a chance to remedy it and
we ought to.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I really am perplexed. The gentleman who offers this
amendment obviously feels deeply and strongly about the wrong to be
righted by this proposal, which is obviously legislative language. The
gentleman chairs the committee of jurisdiction.
We are in the ninth month of this session of Congress. If the
gentleman believes that this is such an important
[[Page H7794]]
matter, the question obviously arises why, with his control over the
jurisdiction of this committee, there has not been legislation
introduced, hearings held and a bill reported, so that we would not be
put to this very awkward business of trying to figure out the real
practical implications, legally, in terms of cost and every other way
by a proposal brought first to the floor of the House.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. The only reason it is here now, I saw the Murtha amendment,
it was coming to the floor, and I thought we could do it better. That
is all. I am trying to improve someone else's amendment to make it
fairer, to make it not too broad, and to give a standard. That is why
we are here.
That is not to say we will not deal with it in the Committee on the
Judiciary, I am sure we will, but there may be no need to after it
passes.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman is
sure he will, I think he makes the point. Let us not do this fast,
maybe wrong, and with ill consideration in the context of an
appropriations bill.
The gentleman has indicated that if we defeat his amendment, and
presumably later on defeat the Murtha language, this will be a matter
taken up, as it should be, by the committee with jurisdiction over this
kind of legislation, not a quick and possibly wrong resolution of the
matter on an appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde])
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had initially intended to offer an amendment that
would have increased appropriations by $2 million for the victim and
witness program at the Department of Justice. However, in discussions
with the gentleman from Kentucky Chairman Rogers, I have decided that a
colloquy would be the best way to address my concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with the
gentleman from Kentucky Chairman Rogers the need to further address
victims' rights, and I also want to commend the ranking minority member
of the appropriations subcommittee for his commitment to offering
valuable services such as victim coordinators, as well as a national
notification system to those that have been the unfortunate victims of
violent crime.
Mr. Chairman, the American criminal justice system has neglected
victims for far too long. As part of its responsibility, U.S. Attorney
offices from across the country have recently established victim and
witness assistance programs to close the gap between prosecutors and
victims.
I can tell you as a former prosecuting attorney in the State of
Missouri, that as a result of increasing caseloads, prosecutors have
been given the near impossible task of convicting the guilty,
protecting the innocent, and providing much needed services to victims
of crimes.
Coordinators help victims of domestic violence and child abuse, as
well as telemarketing and securities fraud, which often targets
seniors, and even victims such as those that suffered in the Oklahoma
City bombing. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, more should be done to meet the
needs of these incredibly sensitive cases.
Coordinators are an integral part in keeping victims at the center of
the criminal justice system, rather than on the outside looking in.
Victims deserve to be educated in the legal rights they have in the
judicial system and deserve the emotional support that coordinators
provide. As we here in Congress continue to crack down on criminals,
the needs of victims should be equally elevated.
Additionally, victim and witness assistance programs will be
implementing a national notification system that ensures victims are
kept informed of case developments. It is imperative that victims of
domestic violence, rape or child molestation be notified of a
criminal's release back into society. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that
the U.S. Attorneys' Offices across the country will be able to move
quickly in providing this service to victims.
The victim and witness assistance program is important to ensure
public confidence in our criminal justice system, to make sure that it
continues to aggressively prosecute dangerous criminals, while at the
same time servicing the rights of victims. It is my hope, with the
gentleman from Kentucky Chairman Rogers, that I can work with the
gentleman on an agreement to increase by $2 million the appropriation
for the victim and witness assistance program in joint House and Senate
conference negotiations.
It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that individuals who have been
tragically victimized by criminals should not be victimized a second
time by our criminal justice system.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement,
and for his concern for victims' rights. I realize the gentleman's
commitment toward this cause and the background he brings to this body
as a former prosecuting attorney from the State of Missouri as Attorney
General.
I agree that every effort must be made to ensure that victims are not
forgotten in the criminal justice system. The measures included in this
year's appropriations bill send us in the right direction to meeting
the needs of victims of serious violent crime. The subcommittee
provided funds for 74 new victim coordinators and advocates and the
development of a national notification system.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman during the
conference deliberations on the bill to find additional monies for this
very vital program.
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, $76,199,000, 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
$7,860,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership
Program exclusive of augmentation that occurred in these
offices in fiscal year 1997: Provided further, That not to
exceed 41 permanent positions and 48 full-time equivalent
workyears and $4,660,000 shall be expended for the Offices of
Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs: Provided further,
That the latter two 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, $20,000,000, 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 result of 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.
administrative review and appeals
For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and
clemency petitions and immigration related activities,
$66,700,000.
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
[[Page H7795]]
amended, $59,000,000, 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, $33,211,000; 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:
Provided, That up to one-tenth of one percent of the
Department of Justice's allocation from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund grant programs may be transferred at the
discretion of the Attorney General to this account for the
audit or other review of such grant programs, as authorized
by section 130005 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322).
Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Souder:
Page 4, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I should say at the outset this amendment
is cosponsored by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, International
Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight with oversight over the INS.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply transfers the $3 million from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and increases the Inspector
General's office at the Justice Department by $2 million to provide
adequate resources for a thorough investigation of the abuses of the
Citizenship USA program administered by the INS.
The Citizenship USA program was devised in 1995 to increase the speed
and efficiency of the naturalization process. The problem is that speed
was a priority and efficiency was forgotten. In 1996, the number of
naturalizations tripled to 1.1 million, an upsurge well timed for the
November election.
In the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and
Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I
chaired a number of hearings on the resulting chaos from this
accelerated process. It was said at that time that the appropriations
committee had increased the funding for this acceleration.
As I pointed out, the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, and
all of us in Congress certainly did not intend to not have background
checks be done. The goal was to correctly bring people who were legal
aliens into citizenship and welcome them in and accelerate that
process. That was the reason the appropriations committee increased the
funding, not to bring people in without the proper background checks.
What we heard in those hearings was we heard from people who said
that they had bound bundles of tests that were taken in the same
pencil, in the same handwriting, and yet were being applied as
individuals as opposed to groups that they were actually done by.
We heard from Dallas, for example, that they had boxes of forms that
never went through FBI background checks; boxes, literally thousands in
some of these offices.
We heard about the mass swearing in ceremonies, where often the green
cards were dumped into bins without checking off where they were coming
from and then reappeared in the streets.
We heard career INS employees telling how they were told not to ask
questions and follow-up questions when people did not even know what
city they lived in. This type of thing was not what was intended by
Congress.
The accelerated activity resulted in 180,000 applications being
approved without proper screening, according to Justice Department
figures, and, of those, 10,800 had felony arrests.
On April 18, 1997, the Justice Department released a report conducted
by KPMG Peat Marwick Company that made clear that the Justice
Department had failed to take adequate corrective action. The report
stated that because of the persistent problems in checking fingerprints
of citizen applicants against FBI criminal history records, ``we cannot
provide assurances that INS is not continuing to incorrectly
nationalize aliens without disqualifying conditions.''
On April 28, 1997, the Inspector General of the Justice Department
announced a wide-ranging special investigation by his office into
allegations of mismanagement, misconduct and illegality in the
controversial INS program to speed up the citizenship process.
{time} 1915
Yet still Attorney General Reno refuses to appoint an independent
counsel to provide an objective and complete investigation.
I know that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] the chairman of
the subcommittee, has held hearings on this subject, as we have done on
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and I thank the
chairman for his leadership on this important matter.
I ask for my colleagues' support for a complete and objective
investigation of illegal activity by the inspector general in order to
restore the integrity and dignity of the naturalization process.
Naturalization is a critical symbol of the American democratic
experiment and the continuing contribution that immigrants make. The
time has come to eliminate this blemish on the immigration system and
those, the majority of whom, the overwhelming majority of whom, who
legally pursue their citizenship. We should not cheapen it.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I understood that we were going to accept
this amendment without debating it. In the process of accepting the
amendment for the purposes of the bill being considered on the floor
here today, I just want it understood that all of the characterizations
that the gentleman has made are not agreed to in the process of our
accepting the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made a very interesting
point, and I am prepared to accept the amendment, because it gives
additional oversight of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an
agency that I think is out of control.
I have to say this, if the gentleman will continue to yield. In this
bill, in addition to the money that we hope is agreed to in the
gentleman's amendment for additional oversight by the inspector general
of the Department for INS, in the bill we make it illegal for the INS
to waive the FBI criminal check before they grant citizenship to an
individual.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it clear, I intend to
make no additional statement.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. So we make it illegal for them to waive the criminal
check by the FBI before they grant citizenship, as they did last year
in at least 180,000 cases, and we have 10,000, at least, felons walking
the streets of America today because the INS waived the policy against
requiring criminal checks by the FBI before they grant citizenship. We
make it law now in this bill, not just policy. It will be the law.
No. 2, in this bill we also authorize and direct the Attorney General
to fire on the spot any INS employee who violates the law or policy of
the Department in relation to the naturalization process. We will not
tolerate the selling of American citizenship for votes or anything else
in this country, and this bill makes that plain.
Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H7796]]
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong
this, but as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims on the Committee on the Judiciary, I just want to make it clear
that Peat Marwick has just finished the report and issued it. There
were only 300 presumptively ineligible persons found out of 1.3
million, so this notion that there is some massive impropriety going on
is just incorrect.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, INS at this very moment is processing 5,000
revocations of citizenship because they are criminals; 5,000, and they
have just started counting. The gentleman is incorrect.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words, and I will not take the 5 minutes.
I think we are talking about two separate issues, and I am not taking
issue with what the chairman says, but the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Souder] in his comments made reference to a report from Peat Marwick.
That report just out indicates only 300 out of 1.3 million people who
were presumptively ineligible for citizenship, and that is a different
issue than the issue the chairman is addressing.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
United States Parole Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Parole
Commission as authorized by law, $4,799,000.
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; $445,000,000, 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ackerman
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman:
Page 5, line 9, insert ``(increased by $300,000)'' after
``$445,000,000''.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues may already know
the deeply troubling situation that exists in the United States with
regard to the veterans of the Nazi war machine.
About 8 months ago I discovered that thousands of former soldiers
from Hitler's elite Waffen-S.S. corps, now living all around the world,
some of whom may have participated in crimes against humanity, have
been receiving monthly pensions from the German Government. These
fairly generous pensions called, ironically enough, war victims'
pensions, are given to Nazi SS officers who sustained injuries during
World War II.
However, my concern lies with the fact that neither the German
Government nor any other government has ever bothered to cross-check
the list of applicants and recipients with the international list of
known Nazi war criminals. This is unacceptable, particularly since we
have learned that at least 3,300 recipients of these Nazi pensions live
right here in the United States.
The situation becomes ironically intolerable when we realize that
according to the American Jewish Committee, which has done a tremendous
job in working on this issue, that well over 15,000 Jewish survivors of
the Holocaust, and probably at least as many non-Jewish survivors
living in Eastern Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union, have
never received any compensation from that government for the horrors
they were forced to endure in Nazi ghettos and concentration camps.
These survivors have been dubbed the ``double victims,'' as they were
first victimized by the Nazi nightmare and then again by the Communist
governments that took over after the war. Perhaps we need to call them
``triple victims'' at this point since they are once again being
victimized by a government who continuously refuses to offer them any
compensation. Many of these survivors are also in desperate financial
straits as well as in poor health.
Based on the information we received regarding the issue of pensions
to former Nazi Waffen-SS officers, I wrote to German Chancellor Helmut
Kohl requesting that he send us the list of those living in the United
States so that the Office of Special Investigations in our State
Department and in our Department of Justice could do the necessary
cross-checking before the trail to Nazi war criminals grows cold.
To the credit of Chancellor Kohl and the German people, he quickly
acceded to the request, and our Office of Special Investigations, OSI,
under the superb leadership of its Director, Eli Rosenbaum, is
currently poring over these lists.
Let me also stress that the work that they are doing now is extremely
slow and a very tedious and laborious process. OSI continues to be
undermanned and underresourced, and this additional major surprise
project further strains those capabilities.
Therefore, this amendment would simply add $300,000 to the Justice
Department appropriation for the specific purposes of investigating the
names on the lists that the German Government has provided us. I think
this is a prudent and reasonable amendment, and I have been informed by
the Director of OSI that this additional appropriation would allow them
to hire the needed attorneys and historians in order to complete this
list project effectively and efficiently and in a timely manner.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has worked very closely with
us on his amendment. We believe this program has merit and is a good
amendment, and we have no objection to it and support its adoption.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for his cooperation and his decisive leadership
in this matter, and I urge the adoption of this amendment in the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers], the chairman of the subcommittee.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer an
amendment, along with the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] for the Office of the United States Attorney
to augment this fund by $100,000 for additional resources for the
Federal Victims' Assistance Program in the Commonwealth of the
Marianas. However, I understand that the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], is willing to engage us in a
colloquy, and if I can do so, I would like to do that at this time,
with the chairman's permission.
In lieu of offering that amendment, I understand that additional
funds have already been provided in this bill that could accommodate
the need for increased U.S. Attorneys' presence in the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands to address the increasing docket and
strained resources for both the Federal district court and the Office
of the U.S. Attorney located in Guam, which presently provides
prosecution support to the CNMI.
[[Page H7797]]
The increased law enforcement of the Federal criminal statutes'
victims protection and violations of the Occupational Health and Safety
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act will be furthered with additional
U.S. attorney resources. This will also permit the increased
cooperation between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas in addressing any violation of workplace and housing
laws.
What I would like to ask the chairman is will the chairman work to
include the language in the statement of managers which directs the
U.S. attorneys to provide an additional $100,000 in resources in Guam
for the use of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas to address
these issues?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me compliment the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] for raising these concerns regarding law
enforcement needs in the Northern Mariana Islands. We will work during
the conference to include language to address the issue in the
statement of managers.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for his statement of support and his willingness to work with
myself and the other Members, and I appreciate the gentleman agreeing
to do this colloquy.
The reason we did this, I say to my colleagues, is I think that it is
accurate to say that most Members of Congress, like most Americans, are
unaware of the tens of thousands of workers who toil on American soil
in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands who are
routinely subjected to gross violations of their human rights and other
rights, while being provided few of the legal protections afforded the
rest of us.
This widespread and intolerable abuse have been credibly documented
by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Justice Department, the
Commerce Department, State, Labor; and news organizations, including
the television program Inside Edition, Reader's Digest, the Honolulu
Star Bulletin, the Pacific Daily News, the Dallas Morning News, the
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times; the report of the Committee on
Resources Democratic staff, foreign consulates, church and human rights
workers, and many others.
It is regrettable that until today, this Congress is one of the few
places where we have been unable to gain even minimal discussion of
these abuses. Inside Edition captured the horrific conditions in the
Marianas on film and for this Nation to view. Now we in Congress must
respond to the outrages that they have documented.
Indeed, instead of allocating the resources to providing greater
protection for these exploited and abused workers, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Marianas Government has spent millions of dollars lobbying
this Congress to allow these current practices to continue. The victims
of this abuse are afraid to complain because they are impoverished and
laboring in a foreign country, our country. They are bound by contracts
and labor agreements that stifle the most minimum of constitutional and
human rights. They know that complaining about the underpayment of
wages, forced prostitution, and employer rape carries with it the risk
of retaliation or immediate deportation, or actions against their
families in China.
{time} 1930
Mr. Chairman, thousands of these women toil in the garment factories
owned by the People's Republic of China, and they are forced to sign
shadow contracts with the Chinese Government before they are allowed to
work here that stipulate that they are forbidden from practicing
religion while in the United States, and may not engage in free speech.
This is simply unacceptable.
Here perhaps is the most shocking fact. The products that this
exploited labor work force, the products that they work on, are
admitted to our national markets duty-free, quota-free, and with the
label sewn by these indentured workers that says, ``Made in the
U.S.A.''
We can no longer accept this practice. Additional funds for the
Attorney General's office in the Northern Marianas are desperately
needed. I thank the chairman again for entering into this colloquy.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to
proceed for 4 additional minutes.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr.
Chairman.
I am really very, very excited about the idea that for the first time
since my coming here to Congress in 1990, we have a chance to discuss
this issue. Many of us have been really worried and concerned about it.
We have done what we could in letter writing and contacting and
exposing this whole issue before our constituents, before the people
that have some power to do something about this. But this is really a
very, very serious situation.
When we talk about the Northern Marianas, so many people think that
this is a foreign country. Why should we care about what the conditions
are that these people work under?
Let me remind this House that in 1975 we entered into a compact with
the Northern Marianas, a covenant which gave the indigenous people of
this territory U.S. citizenship status. They are American citizens.
They should abide by the fundamental laws of this country, but they do
not.
The reason they do not was there was a provision in the covenant
which yielded to their demands at that time to say that they should not
have to apply or enforce the immigration laws of this country nor the
labor laws. They argued that the immigration laws and labor laws would
be too cumbersome, too many regulations. It would encumber the ability
of this small place to prosper and become self-sufficient. So the
Congress gave in and the covenant, therefore, excluded these two very
vital provisions which safeguard people entering into the United
States.
The Northern Marianas is part of the United States. Those people
there are U.S. citizens. What they do is they comb across the Asian
continent and they find unwitting, unsuspecting victims to lure to the
Northern Marianas with promises of great prosperity, with promises that
they will earn money and be able to send it back to their families so
they can have a better life; that they would come to an American
territory and really enjoy the benefits of a democracy.
What do they find? They sign a contract which requires that they
repay thousands of dollars if they cancel it. They come to the Northern
Marianas. They are really enslaved in these terrible warehouses, tens
of thousands of foreigners impacted into this place. They do not have
the protection of minimum wage. Oftentimes they work with no salary at
all.
They cannot complain because if they want to break their contract,
they have no money to give back to these people who hired them. They
have no money to buy an airplane ticket. The women who come to this
place are terrorized. They are brutalized. They are made into
prostitutes. Young children, 14- and 15-year-olds, females, are put
into bondage. It is the most disgraceful thing happening on U.S. soil.
Forget the fact that it is the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas;
it is a U.S. territory. The people with whom we signed the contract
were U.S. citizens. It is our responsibility to make sure that these
individuals are protected.
All we are asking this Congress to do is to pay heed to the victims
who are brought there, tens of thousands, most of them women. One of
them that I know in my State has been brought to the State of Hawaii as
a victim. She came to Hawaii at age 14 and is now 16, and she cannot
obtain justice. She has no funds with which to exist. There is no
victim protection for her whatsoever. She was abused and raped and put
into prostitution.
Mr. Chairman, if Members had an opportunity to witness this
themselves and to talk to the people that have endured this system,
Members would understand the rage and the furor that I feel about what
is happening there.
[[Page H7798]]
And the products, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman in the well has said,
they come to the United States with a ``Made in the U.S.A.'' label.
That is heinous.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]
has expired.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 3
additional minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, we have a
great number of items to take up. I want us to air this fully, but I
would hope that we could conclude.
Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the
gentleman. The only reason we would do that is just so it could be in
sequence. We did not know if they could strike the 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. I have already agreed to do what the gentleman wants.
Mr. MILLER of California. I understand.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for giving us the
opportunity to talk about these deplorable human rights abuses, as has
been stated, right here on U.S. territory.
The report that was issued in July indicates that local government in
the Northern Mariana Islands looks the other way as tens of thousands
of low-paid and disenfranchised women, mostly from China and the
Philippines, are forced to live and work in squalid, unsafe conditions.
Guards, barbed wire have prevented them from escaping. The women
suffer, the owners of the sweatshops prosper. Some, as my colleague the
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] pointed out, have been forced into
prostitution.
Whistle blowers are abused, troublemakers are sent back to their home
countries, while the local government has turned a blind eye, leaving
these women and young girls with little hope for protection. This kind
of treatment is intolerable.
I happen to have a particular interest in this area because my mother
was a garment worker. She worked in a sweatshop in New Haven, CT, as so
many women did, where they worked for pennies. They worked in all
conditions.
This is not the right thing to do. We made some changes here in the
country. We tend to think that sweatshops do not exist any longer. In
fact, they do, and right under our very eyes in territories under U.S.
control.
I am pleased we have an opportunity to insert some funds here which
will allow for there to be law enforcement efforts. This would allow
U.S. Federal law officials to do the right thing. More important, it
would help thousands of women regain their dignity and their honor.
We responded immediately this past summer to discovering illegal
sweatshops in New York City. Americans do know what is right in this
area. Forced labor, entrapment into prostitution, are wrong. When we
discovered the conditions in New York City, Americans were outraged. We
demanded change, and it occurred. We should do the same for the women
who are trapped in the Northern Marianas sweatshops.
Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the chairman and ranking member for
their attendance to this problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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, $7,969,000, 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, $84,542,000: Provided, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, not to exceed $70,000,000 of
offsetting collections derived from fees collected for
premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino
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 1998, so as to result in a
final fiscal year 1998 appropriation from the General Fund
estimated at not more than $14,542,000: Provided further,
That any fees received in excess of $70,000,000 in fiscal
year 1998 shall remain available until expended, but shall
not be available for obligation until October 1, 1998.
Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Attorneys, including intergovernmental and cooperative
agreements, $973,000,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000
shall be available until September 30, 1999, for (1) training
personnel in debt collection, (2) locating debtors and their
property, (3) paying the net costs of selling property, and
(4) 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: Provided 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 9,010 positions and 9,116
full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the
funds appropriated in this Act for the United States
Attorneys: Provided further, That not to exceed $6,000,000
for office moves, expansions and renovations shall remain
available until September 30, 1999: Provided further, That
not to exceed $1,200,000 for the design, development and
implementation of an information systems strategy for D.C.
Superior Court shall remain available until expended.
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), $62,828,000,
to remain available until expended, which shall be derived
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
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 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 1998, so as to result in a
final fiscal year 1998 appropriation from the Fund estimated
at $0: Provided further, That any such fees collected in
excess of $107,950,000 in fiscal year 1998 shall remain
available until expended but shall not be available for
obligation until October 1, 1998.
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, $1,226,000.
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 police-type use, without regard
to the general purchase price limitation for the current
fiscal year, $462,944,000, 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 not to exceed $2,200,000 to
support the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That, for
fiscal year 1998 and thereafter, 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
[[Page H7799]]
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended,
$25,553,000, 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.
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, $75,000,000, 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 and, in addition, up to $2,000,000 of funds made
available to the Department of Justice in this Act may be
transferred by the Attorney General to this account:
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 the previous proviso 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.
Assets Forfeiture Fund
For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(A)(ii),
(B), (F), and (G), as amended, $23,000,000, to be derived
from the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.
Radiation Exposure Compensation
Administrative Expenses
For necessary administrative expenses in accordance with
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, $2,000,000. Further,
for the foregoing purposes during fiscal year 1999,
$2,000,000.
Payment to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund
For payments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
Fund, $4,381,000. Further, for the foregoing purposes during
fiscal year 1999, $29,000,000.
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, $294,967,000, 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 3,094 passenger motor
vehicles, of which 2,270 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, $2,706,944,000; of
which not to exceed $50,000,000 for automated data processing
and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment
and not to exceed $1,000,000 for undercover operations shall
remain available until September 30, 1999; of which not less
than $147,081,000 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 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 available for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That no funds in
this Act may be used to provide ballistics imaging equipment
to any State or local authority which has obtained similar
equipment through a Federal grant or subsidy unless the State
or local authority agrees to return that equipment or to
repay that grant or subsidy to the Federal Government.
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''),
$179,121,000, to remain available until expended, which shall
be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund; of
which $102,127,000 shall be for activities authorized by
section 190001(c) of the 1994 Act and section 811 of the
Antiterrorism Act; $57,994,000 shall be for activities
authorized by section 190001(b) of the 1994 Act; $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; and $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.
telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund
As authorized by section 110 of the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1009),
$50,000,000 is appropriated for purposes of national
security, without fiscal year limitation, to the Department
of Justice Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund, for
payments pursuant to section 401 of such Act (47 U.S.C.
1021).
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; $38,506,000, 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 1,602 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,410 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; $814,463,000, 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 $10,000,000 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, 1999; and of which not to
exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses.
Violent Crime Reduction Programs
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), $310,037,000, to remain available until
expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund.
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; $5,500,000, to remain
available until expended.
[[Page H7800]]
Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 18, line 10, be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill
through page 18, line 10?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, is all the debate passed for the time
period that will be available to discuss what the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] had been proposing?
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]
restate his point of inquiry?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. On the Miller amendment, is all time passed when
anyone can debate the subject matter of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]?
The CHAIRMAN. There was no debate. The gentleman did not offer the
amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. At this point, before we move on to another subject,
is it permissible for this gentleman to strike the last word?
The CHAIRMAN. It certainly is.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes. Let me just note,
there is a philosophical difference between some of the people who have
been expressing what I would consider the worst possible picture,
painting the worst possible picture of the Northern Marianas Islands,
and those of us who look at the Northern Marianas Islands and compare
them to other such areas of the world and see a totally different
picture.
Yes, if we painted a picture of the United States as a developing
country 25 or let us say 50 to 75 years ago, people would say the
United States is a horrible place as compared to the United States
today. But the fact is that the United States as compared to other
countries in the world 75 years ago was a pretty good place. The
Northern Mariana Islands as compared to other areas of similar
development, other islands, especially even island territories of the
United States of America, is a pretty good place. They have had a great
deal of reform, free enterprise reform, in the last 5 years that has
totally turned around their economy.
I realize that there are people on the other side of the aisle who
believe that government should regulate economic activity to improve
the standard of living of the people of a given area. I do not think
that works. What has happened in the Northern Marianas, when they were
counting on handouts from the Federal Government, when they were
counting on the United States government here in Washington, D.C. to
provide them subsidies, the standard of living of everyone in those
islands was going downhill.
Today, when they have developed a new strategy for the development of
their little islands, the standard of living of their island people is
going up. And of course, it is argued, my goodness, they have all of
these guest workers who are working in terrible situations, they are
getting less than the minimum wage in the United States, et cetera.
However, even those individuals, by and large the vast majority of
those individuals, perhaps 90 percent of those individuals are living
better than they would if they would not have jobs. That is why they
came to the Northern Marianas.
My good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. George Miller], I
do not know if he would prefer to have these people unemployed in the
Philippines or unemployed in the various countries they come from, or
if he would rather have them working and going back after 2 years with
several thousand dollars in their pockets.
Mr. Chairman, I have as much objection as my good friend, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] does to people who break their
contracts with guest workers. That was a problem in the Northern
Marianas. That is no longer a major problem, because the people and the
government of the Northern Marianas have committed themselves to
solving that problem, and preventing the poorest of the poor people who
come in as guest workers from being exploited to the point that their
contracts are not being honored.
I went there. I talked to many, many guest workers. I went to various
factories. I talked also to the law enforcement agencies that are
there, who said yes, there was a problem 5 years ago, but now we are
forcing these employers to honor their contracts. Thus, these contract
laborers are living better than they would if they were stuck in China
or the Philippines.
I will tell the Members, the people of the Northern Marianas, their
standard of living is going up, not down. That is compared to all these
other island possessions of the United States which are relying on
handouts from the American people, and those island economies are on
the way down. So the Northern Marianas has found something successful.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding. We do not want to belabor the point. The chairman wants to
move on. Hopefully we will have other opportunities to debate this.
The gentleman mentioned people from the Philippines. Let me just say,
what we are asking for is the same thing that the Philippine government
has petitioned the Northern Marianas for these people, that they not be
put into forced sex, young girls not be required to dance in bar clubs,
and they not be put into prostitution, because that is going on today.
I appreciate what the gentleman is saying, except there is no
independent validation of what the gentleman is saying with respect to
the workers. Every independent group that has looked at this has found
it to be just the opposite currently going on in the Northern Marianas.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, no decent American or anyone else is
going to turn the other way as young girls or any young person is
exploited and a contract is not honored, or someone is being forced
into a life style like the gentleman is suggesting.
But what I am saying here is the reason the Northern Marianas have
been targeted, unlike New York City, which we have heard about just
from our last speaker before I got up, is because the Northern
Marianas, unlike other island possessions, are taking a free enterprise
approach to development. It is increasing the standard of living of
their people. Even the guest workers are better off than if they had no
job at all.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Hall of Texas, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
{time} 1945
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do not always agree with the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] on issues, but I have high
regard and high respect for him. We seem to be in agreement today that
more resources and efforts have got to be committed to the law
enforcement in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
It is my strong recommendation that additional funds be transferred
to the appropriate category for use in adding an additional Assistant
District Attorney. That is what they tell me they need. Going over
there and staying 4 or 5 days does not make me an authority.
I did not find the things that have been related here. But I know the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is an honorable man who knows
how to detect these things. I hope he will go with the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young] early next year.
As I understand, the committee of jurisdiction should be the
Committee on Resources. It is my understanding that the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young] is going to lead a delegation there in January. I
strongly suggest that the gentleman from California
[[Page H7801]]
[Mr. Miller], who is a member of that committee, join the chairman in
that group.
Hopefully, he will be persuaded, as I was, that there are many, many
more people that are much better off because of the fact that they get
an opportunity to leave the poverty of the Philippines and part of
China and part of other areas, come there and work 2 years, go back
very wealthy. And they have long lines to do that. And, of course, it
is not perfect.
If there are any of the things that the gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller] has related going on there, none of us on this floor
condone it. We just need to get the hard, cold facts out on the floor.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, not only do we not condone it, I would
applaud the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] that we should, as a
country, make sure that we take the steps necessary to stop that.
But to condemn, basically to throw the baby out with the bath water
and say this is part and parcel of this free-enterprise revolution that
they have going on in the Northern Marianas is just an inaccurate
picturing of what is going on in the lives of most people in the
Northern Marianas.
I met with a lot of the reformers there from the churches who have
been active in trying to correct the problems that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] brought up, and they admitted to me that in the
last 5 years things have gotten dramatically better because the decent
people of the Northern Marianas, who, after all, in any area are decent
people, have made a commitment to make those changes.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], chairman of the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary.
First, I want to thank the chairman for his work in providing $600
million in total funding for the Senate Criminal Alien Assistance
Program. This is $100 million more than the Fiscal Year 1997 level and
the Fiscal Year 1998 level requested by the President and recently
passed by the Senate.
When this bill goes to conference, I urge the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Rogers] to fight for the House-passed level. As the chairman is
aware, language was included in the 1997 Commerce, Justice, State
appropriations bill that allowed California to use its Violent Offender
Incarceration and its Truth-In-Sentencing incentive grant awards to
offset the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. Such language is
again included in the House committee-passed fiscal year 1998
appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Texas, the State with the second largest
criminal alien incarceration population, and other States with
significant numbers of incarcerated criminal aliens would greatly
benefit if they were given similar latitude in the use of their VOI
grant award funds.
In conference, I urge the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the
chairman, to work for the House-passed level of $600 million. However,
if during negotiations that level is reduced, would the chairman be
willing to work with us to provide some additional flexibilities to
States like ours with high criminal alien incarceration populations in
the use of their VOI grant award funds?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRADY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic to the needs of Texas
and other States that have the highest criminal alien incarceration
populations and believe that the additional $100 million the House
provides for in the program will alleviate most of the problems that my
colleagues are encountering.
I recognize the need for those affected States to have greater
flexibility in using their staff reimbursements. If we are not able to
provide them this additional funding, I will work with my colleague and
others to find a solution.
Mr. BRADY. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the
chairman, for his leadership and assistance.
The CHAIRMAN: Are there further amendments to the bill through page
18, line 10?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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 2,904, 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; research related to immigration
enforcement; and for the care and housing of Federal
detainees held in the joint Immigration and Naturalization
Service and United States Marshals Service's Buffalo
Detention Facility; $1,609,441,000; of which not to exceed
$400,000 for research shall remain available until expended;
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; and of which not to exceed
$5,000,000 is to fund or reimburse other Federal agencies for
the costs associated with the care, maintenance, and
repatriation of smuggled illegal aliens: 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, 1998: 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 not to exceed 32 permanent positions
and 32 full-time equivalent workyears and $3,101,000 shall be
expended for the Office of Legislative Affairs and Public
Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two
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: Provided
further, That, during fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year
thereafter, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service may
be used to accept, process, or forward to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation any FD-258 fingerprint card, for the purpose
of conducting criminal background checks for any benefit
under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has been
prepared by, or received from, any individual or entity other
than an office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
or State or local law enforcement agency and beginning on
March 1, 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter only an office
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service may accept,
process or forward FD-258 fingerprint cards to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for any of these applications which
require an interview: Provided further, That, during fiscal
year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service shall be used to complete
adjudication of an application for naturalization unless the
Immigration and Naturalization Service has received
confirmation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a
full criminal background check has been completed, except for
those exempted by regulation as of January 1, 1997: Provided
further, That the number of positions filled through non-
career appointment at the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, for which funding is provided in this Act or is
otherwise made available to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, shall not exceed four permanent
positions and four full-time equivalent workyears: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 1998, the Attorney General is authorized
and directed to impose disciplinary action, including
termination of employment, pursuant to policies and
procedures applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, for any employee of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service who violates policies and procedures
set forth by the Department of Justice relative to the
granting of citizenship or who willfully deceives the
Congress or Department Leadership on any matter.
____________________