[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.

                          ____________________