[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7801-H7818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weygand

  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows

       :Amendment offered by Mr. Weygand:

[[Page H7802]]

       Page 20, line 10, strike ``during fiscal year 1998'' and 
     insert ``beginning June 1, 1998''.
       Page 20, line 21, strike ``March'' and insert ``June''.

  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first of all begin by 
thanking the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], our ranking 
member, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], chairman of the 
committee, for their indulgence and their assistance and their advice 
on this amendment.
  After a lot of discussions, Mr. Chairman, I will eventually withdraw 
the amendment. But what I would like to talk about is the key part of 
my amendment deals with the transition with regard to designated 
fingerprinting services. Because of the concerns over quality and 
veracity of the prints being given to the INS for background checks at 
the FBI, this bill halts the ability of INS to accept prints from 
various outside sources after March 1 of next year.
  In addition, though, the committee very aptly put into the bill $22.3 
million to be spent on a new electronic fingerprinting system which 
will scan the fingerprints of applicants and electronically transfer 
them to the FBI for background check, a very welcome and needed 
addition to the INS and naturalization process, very important for a 
number of reasons. First of all, it would be more accurate. Secondly, 
it would be more speedy.
  Our concern, though, Mr. Chairman was the transition between what is 
presently in place right now to the new system. Currently, the bill 
will mandate that INS will take over all of those services as of March 
1. In the interim, there will be a 5-month transition in which State 
and local law enforcement agencies will be able to provide these 
fingerprints to the INS.
  But it will eliminate from this point forward any opportunity for 
DFS's or designated fingerprinting services, which are nonprofit or 
for-profit agencies to provide this service. And as the chairman has 
aptly pointed out, and correctly so, there have been many problems with 
many of the for-profit and even not-for-profit DFS's.
  We have had a problem with people being naturalized that should never 
have been naturalized. But, quite frankly, there have been some very 
good DFS's that are providing valuable service to the INS.
  In my district in Rhode Island, the INS branch office in Providence 
has found no problems with the four facilities that provide these 
fingerprinting services. In my State there are nine local law 
enforcement agencies that assist these 4 facilities. The three that are 
most used are the International Institute, the Catholic Social Service, 
and a community-based organization called Progresso Latino. These have 
been providing very good and important services to our people in our 
district.
  An example, International Institute, located in Providence, not only 
does it provide DFS services to the INS, it provides such things as 
classes in citizenship, English as a second language, job training 
programs to many people who came here in the United States not having 
any skills whatsoever, computer classes and translation classes. It is 
a community-based organization which provides services for those trying 
to assimilate into our country and to become active and fruitful 
participants in the United States.
  Before being certified as DFS's, these services are required by 
regulation to undergo training and must adhere to the strictest 
requirements to maintain their status. Unfortunately, those that have 
been bad DFS's in all parts of this country have not been really 
overseen quickly enough and fervently enough by the INS.
  That is unfortunate, because there are some very good DFS's and there 
are some very bad. Unfortunately, we are going to be throwing all of 
these DFS's out as of October 1. I have talked to the chairman and to 
the ranking member. I can fully understand their position. It is a very 
complex and difficult situation. But I would hope in the future we can 
look at valuable institutions like the International Institute as being 
a backup for the INS when in fact they need them.
  Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment at this time and I would 
ask that I would join with my colleague, the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] in an amendment that will provide some additional 
extension of the transition with regard to the fingerprinting services.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will not 
take the full time. However, since the gentleman has brought up this 
subject, it requires me to say a couple of words about the problem at 
INS.
  One of the problems at INS last year, when we discovered that INS had 
granted naturalization of citizenship to a million-three, which is four 
times the annual historic amount, we then discovered that they had 
waived the policy, the then policy of the department on requiring an 
FBI criminal check before a person becomes a citizen. We had always 
done that in every case.
  Last year, for whatever reason, before the election the 
administration waived that, did not require it. Now we have discovered 
tens of thousands of people were naturalized who were felons, 
criminals, walking the streets of our country. We found out also that 
on those that they did require a background check, including a 
fingerprint, that INS had contracted out the fingerprinting process. So 
that one could go to any one of 3,000 different places to get 
fingerprints made, supposedly, which would then submit that fingerprint 
to the INS, the FBI for checking to see if someone did have a criminal 
record.
  Now, who did they get to take the fingerprints? Let me just read my 
colleagues a couple of them here. This is in L.A. and these are the 
people, now bear in mind, that are submitting the proof as to whether 
or not one can become an American citizen with all the rights and 
privileges thereunto and appertaining.
  They can go to Pookies' Parcel Post and get their fingerprints made. 
How about Harbour Liquors? How about Freeman's Hallmark Store. Or they 
could go to Fast Photo. I am not saying these are bad places. I am just 
saying I have got a question. New Land Travel and Tours. Fred's One 
Hour Photo. King Kong One Hour Photo. They can go to Sam's Electronics 
and get their fingerprints made to check it out to see if they were a 
criminal supposedly. They can go to Quick Sale Realty to get their 
fingerprints made. Or how about J.L. Investment and Traffic School, Mr. 
Chairman? Or they might go to Lindy's Mexican Products or even go to 
Lulu's Professional Services and get their fingerprints made. I will 
not comment any further on that.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us can unanimously agree that 
the process of fingerprint taking for the purpose of becoming an 
American citizen has to be tightened up. And the bill does that. Our 
bill does away with places like Pookies' Parcel Post where we get our 
fingerprints made for American citizenship.
  It is okay to go there for whatever one goes to Pookies' Parcel Post 
for, except for fingerprints for American citizenship. We abolish that 
practice. We make the INS do it in their shop or a law enforcement 
agency in due course in time. And we are giving them the money to get 
the fingerprint machine so this can be done in the proper way under 
proper supervision.
  Number two, as I have said before, we make it a violation of the law 
anymore in waiving the criminal check. Anymore it becomes law, not just 
policy of the department in requiring a criminal check. It is not right 
for any agency of the United States Government to be authorized to 
grant American citizenship to someone who is a criminal, a felon, who 
has come to this country in violation of their laws, not to mention 
ours, and become an American citizen.
  I commend the gentleman for his concern about the issue, and we will 
be dealing with it in a subsequent amendment that is coming up shortly.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina:
       Page 20, line 21, strike ``March'' and insert ``June''.

[[Page H7803]]

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking 
the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their 
cooperation in getting to what I believe is an agreement on this 
amendment. It is my understanding that they are prepared to accept it.
  Let me start by first of all agreeing with the chairman of the 
committee about what he just said. I do that because I sincerely do 
agree with him. What we need to put in context, however, is that 
Pookies' Parcel Post and Lulu's and Anita's are all private enterprises 
in this country. This is one of those times when this notion that we 
should privatize everything that the Federal Government is doing 
basically went awry. This program, the DFS program, has been in 
existence for 15 years. It was put in during the Reagan administration. 
And now what we have found is that there are certain things that 
private enterprise cannot do as well as the Federal Government.
  So on that, I have to agree with the chairman of the committee. It 
probably never should have been done in the first place. This is too 
serious a proposition to give out to just anybody. Now, maybe there are 
some private enterprises out there who can do it, but we certainly 
should not have just done it carte blanche.
  My amendment does not address that issue. It addresses another issue. 
Beginning March 1 of 1998, applicants for benefits which require an INS 
interview, such as naturalization, will be required to have their 
fingerprints taken at the INS. No other fingerprints will be accepted, 
not even those taken by State and local law enforcement agencies. The 
rationale for this change, as the chairman has amply indicated, is that 
the INS intends to implement a new system where fingerprints will be 
scanned electronically and transferred directly to the FBI for 
processing.
  I support this change in the fingerprinting process. I believe the 
INS should use technology more effectively and believe the system 
proposed will be more efficient than current ones, and the current 
system is the DFS system, which the chairman has just talked about.
  Because of the problems associated with DFS's, my amendment does not 
extend the DFS program; however, it would extend the March 1, 1998 
deadline to give the INS adequate time to transition to an electronic 
fingerprinting system. What we would do is move that deadline from 
March 1 of 1998 back to June 1 of 1998.
  The INS has not purchased all of the equipment yet. There is a 
concern that it will not be able to implement the new system fully 
before the March 1 deadline. If this deadline stays in place, and the 
INS does not shift to an electronic system, the net result would be a 
tremendous fingerprinting backlog, and that backlog would translate 
into a de facto moratorium on the naturalization process since no 
applications could be processed without fingerprints.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would give INS 
until June 1, 1998 to transition to a fingerprinting system that would 
require most fingerprints be taken at INS offices, as we have 
discussed. I believe the amendment seeks to ensure an orderly 
transition, and I share that goal. We have met with INS about this as 
well. The INS will be ready to implement the new system on June 1. They 
will not be ready on March 1. In light of that, I am prepared to accept 
the amendment and would urge its adoption.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for accepting the 
amendment.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to 
compliment the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. I think the 
amendment is really necessary. In light of what the chairman just said, 
the extension is really necessary for INS to make that transition. It 
also gives us 3 more months to evaluate how they are doing and, if 
necessary, even come back and look at that again. I wholeheartedly 
support it, and I join him in cosponsoring this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schumer

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer an 
amendment that is on page 33 at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer:
       Page 33, line 20, strike ``$35,000,000'' and all that 
     follows through the comma on line 21 and insert the 
     following; ``$34,000,000 shall be used for a law enforcement 
     technology program, ``$1,000,000 shall be used for police 
     recruitment programs authorized under subtitle H of title III 
     of the 1994 Act,''.

  Mr. SCHUMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky and the gentleman from West Virginia not only for helping put 
this amendment together, but allowing this unanimous-consent request. 
It is a simple and noncontroversial amendment. It would dedicate $1 
million of unallocated balances from fiscal year 1997 for police 
recruitment grants authorized in the 1994 crime bill. The program was 
inspired by the efforts of St. Paul's Community Baptist Church in East 
New York. The purpose is to improve community policing by recruiting 
residents of inner-city neighborhoods to serve as police officers in 
their communities.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has consulted with us on this 
amendment. We have examined it, believe it is meritorious, and are 
prepared to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    Violent Crime Reduction Programs

       For activities authorized by sections 130002, 130005, 
     130006, 130007, and 190001(b) of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as 
     amended, and section 813 of the Antiterrorism and Effective 
     Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132), $690,957,000, 
     to remain available until expended, which will be derived 
     from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.


                              Construction

       For planning, construction, renovation, equipping, and 
     maintenance of buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, not 
     otherwise provided for, $70,959,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                         Federal Prison System


                         Salaries and Expenses

        For expenses necessary for the administration, operation, 
     and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional 
     institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 834, of which 
     599 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and 
     passenger motor vehicles, and for the provision of technical 
     assistance and advice on corrections related issues to 
     foreign governments, $2,869,642,000: Provided,  That the 
     Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for 
     direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief 
     for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions: 
     Provided further,  That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System (FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with 
     a fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to 
     determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of 
     the FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to 
     the custody of the FPS: Provided further,  That uniforms may 
     be purchased without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further,  
     That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further,  
     That not to exceed $90,000,000 for the activation of new 
     facilities shall remain available until September 30, 1999: 
     Provided further,  That of the amounts provided for Contract 
     Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements, and

[[Page H7804]]

     other expenses authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee 
     Education Assistance Act of 1980, as amended, for the care 
     and security in the United States of Cuban and Haitian 
     entrants: Provided further,  That notwithstanding section 
     4(d) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 353(d)), 
     FPS may enter into contracts and other agreements with 
     private entities for periods of not to exceed 3 years and 
     7 additional option years for the confinement of Federal 
     prisoners.


                    violent crime reduction programs

       For substance abuse treatment in Federal prisons as 
     authorized by section 32001(e) of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as 
     amended, $26,135,000, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund.


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; leasing the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Facility; 
     purchase and acquisition of facilities and remodeling, and 
     equipping of such facilities for penal and correctional use, 
     including all necessary expenses incident thereto, by 
     contract or force account; and constructing, remodeling, and 
     equipping necessary buildings and facilities at existing 
     penal and correctional institutions, including all necessary 
     expenses incident thereto, by contract or force account; 
     $255,133,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $14,074,000 shall be available to construct 
     areas for inmate work programs: Provided,  That labor of 
     United States prisoners may be used for work performed under 
     this appropriation: Provided further,  That not to exceed 10 
     percent of the funds appropriated to ``Buildings and 
     Facilities'' in this Act or any other Act may be transferred 
     to ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison System, upon 
     notification by the Attorney General to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in compliance with provisions set forth in section 605 of 
     this Act: Provided further, That, of the total amount 
     appropriated, not to exceed $2,300,000 shall be available for 
     the renovation and construction of United States Marshals 
     Service prisoner-holding facilities.


                Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated

       The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with 
     the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104 
     of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase 
     of (not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.


   Limitation on Administrative Expenses, Federal Prison Industries, 
                              Incorporated

       Not to exceed $3,490,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on 
     an accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and 
     such amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment 
     of claims, and expenditures which the said accounting 
     system requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of 
     commodities acquired or produced, including selling and 
     shipping expenses, and expenses in connection with 
     acquisition, construction, operation, maintenance, 
     improvement, protection, or disposition of facilities and 
     other property belonging to the corporation or in which it 
     has an interest.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           Justice Assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Missing 
     Children's Assistance Act, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith, and with the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984, as amended, and sections 819 and 821 of 
     the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 
     $162,500,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized by section 1001 of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended by Public Law 102-
     534 (106 Stat. 3524); of which $25,000,000 is for the 
     National Sexual Offender Registry.


               State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for 
     State and Local Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance 
     Improvements, notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 
     of said Act, $538,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 1001 of title I of said 
     Act, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), of 
     which $46,500,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of title I of 
     said Act, for discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne 
     Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill through page 27, line 16, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


   Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement 
                               Assistance

       For assistance (including amounts for administrative costs 
     for management and administration, which amounts shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' 
     account) authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended 
     (``the 1994 Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the 
     Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990 
     Act''); $2,437,150,000, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund; of which $523,000,000 shall be for Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grants, pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by 
     the House of Representatives on February 14, 1995, except 
     that for purposes of this Act, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico shall be considered a ``unit of local government'' as 
     well as a ``State'', for the purposes set forth in paragraphs 
     (A), (B), (D), (F), and (I) of section 101(a)(2) of H.R. 728 
     and for establishing crime prevention programs involving 
     cooperation between community residents and law enforcement 
     personnel in order to control, detect, or investigate crime 
     or the prosecution of criminals: Provided,  That no funds 
     provided under this heading may be used as matching funds for 
     any other Federal grant program: Provided further,  That 
     $20,000,000 of this amount shall be for Boys and Girls Clubs 
     in public housing facilities and other areas in cooperation 
     with State and local law enforcement: Provided further,  That 
     funds may also be used to defray the costs of indemnification 
     insurance for law enforcement officers; of which $45,000,000 
     shall be for grants to upgrade criminal records, as 
     authorized by section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Prevention Act of 1993, as amended, and section 4(b) of the 
     National Child Protection Act of 1993; of which $13,500,000 
     shall be available as authorized by section 1001 of title 
     I of the 1968 Act, to carry out the provisions of subpart 
     1, part E of title I of the 1968 Act notwithstanding 
     section 511 of said Act, for the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs; of 
     which $420,000,000 shall be for the State Criminal Alien 
     Assistance Program, as authorized by section 242(j) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; of which 
     $722,500,000 shall be for Violent Offender Incarceration 
     and Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants pursuant to 
     subtitle A of title II of the 1994 Act, of which 
     $180,000,000 shall be available for payments to States for 
     incarceration of criminal aliens, and of which $25,000,000 
     shall be available for the Cooperative Agreement Program: 
     Provided further, That funds made available for Violent 
     Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive 
     Grants to the State of California may, at the discretion 
     of the recipient, be used for payments for the 
     incarceration of criminal aliens; of which $7,000,000 
     shall be for the Court Appointed Special Advocate Program, 
     as authorized by section 218 of the 1990 Act; of which 
     $2,000,000 shall be for Child Abuse Training Programs for 
     Judicial Personnel and Practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 224 of the 1990 Act; of which $160,000,000 shall 
     be for Grants to Combat Violence Against Women, to States, 
     units of local government, and Indian tribal governments, 
     as authorized by section 1001(a)(18) of the 1968 Act: 
     Provided further, That, of these funds, $7,000,000 shall 
     be provided to the National Institute of Justice for 
     research and evaluation of violence against women and 
     $853,000 shall be provided to the Office of the United 
     States Attorney for the District of Columbia for domestic 
     violence programs in D.C. Superior Court; of which 
     $115,750,000 shall be for Grants to Encourage Arrest 
     Policies to States, units of local government, and Indian 
     tribal governments, as authorized by section 1001(a)(19) 
     of the 1968 Act, including $56,750,000 which shall be used 
     exclusively for the purpose of strengthening civil and 
     criminal legal assistance programs for victims of domestic 
     violence; of which $15,000,000 shall be for Rural Domestic 
     Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance Grants, as 
     authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act; of which 
     $2,000,000 shall be for training programs to assist 
     probation and parole officers who work with released sex 
     offenders, as authorized by section 40152(c) of the 1994 
     Act; of which $1,000,000 shall be for grants for televised 
     testimony, as authorized by section 1001(a)(7) of the 1968 
     Act; of which $2,750,000 shall be for national stalker and 
     domestic violence reduction, as authorized by 
     section 40603 of the 1994 Act; of which $63,000,000 shall 
     be for grants for residential substance abuse treatment 
     for State prisoners, as authorized by section 1001(a)(17) 
     of the 1968 Act; of which $10,000,000 shall be for grants 
     to States and units of local government for projects to 
     improve DNA analysis, as authorized by section 1001(a)(22) 
     of the 1968 Act; of which $900,000 shall be for the 
     Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, as 
     authorized by section 240001(c) of the 1994 Act; of which 
     $750,000 shall be for Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
     Programs,

[[Page H7805]]

     as authorized by section 220002(h) of the 1994 Act; of 
     which $30,000,000 shall be for Drug Courts, as authorized 
     by title V of the 1994 Act; of which $1,000,000 shall be 
     for Law Enforcement Family Support Programs, as authorized 
     by section 1001(a)(21) of the 1968 Act; of which 
     $300,000,000 shall be for Juvenile Accountability Block 
     Grants to become available only upon enactment of an 
     authorization for this program; and of which $2,000,000 
     shall be for public awareness programs addressing 
     marketing scams aimed at senior citizens, as authorized by 
     section 250005(3) of the 1994 Act: Provided further,  That 
     funds made available in fiscal year 1998 under subpart 1 
     of part E of title I of the 1968 Act may be obligated for 
     programs to assist States in the litigation processing of 
     death penalty Federal habeas corpus petitions and for drug 
     testing initiatives: Provided further,  That if a unit of 
     local government uses any of the funds made available 
     under this title to increase the number of law enforcement 
     officers, the unit of local government will achieve a net 
     gain in the number of law enforcement officers who perform 
     nonadministrative public safety service.


                 Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Scott:
       Page 29, line 10, insert after the amount ``(reduced by 
     $258,750,000)'' and insert as follows: page 28, line 17, 
     after the amount insert ``(increased by $80,000,000)''; page 
     29, line 20, after the amount insert ``(increased by 
     $13,000,000)'' and on line 22, after the amount insert 
     ``(increased by $8,000,000)'' and on line 25 after the amount 
     insert ``(increased by $40,000,000)''; page 31, line 1, after 
     the amount insert ``(increased by $37,000,000)'' and on line 
     21 after the amount insert ``(increased by $76,750,000)'' and 
     on line 13 after the amount insert ``(increase by 
     $4,000,000)''.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would transfer one half of 
the funds in the truth-in-sentencing prison grant program, 
approximately $250 million, to crime prevention, drug treatment and 
family resource service programs that are inadequately funded in the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the so-called truth-in-sentencing approach to crime 
reduction is actually half-truth-in-sentencing. The proponents will 
tell you that no one gets out early. That is the half truth. The whole 
truth is that no one is held longer either. When States adopt truth-in-
sentencing schemes, the first thing they do is to reduce the length of 
the total sentence and then direct that the defendant serve all of the 
reduced sentence.
  I am not aware of any State that has been able to afford to abolish 
parole without reducing the time served by the worst criminals. For 
example, Mr. Chairman, in a 10-year sentence with parole, the average 
defendant will serve about 3\1/2\ years. The lowest risk prisoners will 
get out as early as 2 years. But the worst criminals will serve all 10 
years. With truth-in-sentencing, everyone will serve the exact same 
average 3\1/2\ years. The less dangerous will serve more time; the most 
dangerous will serve less time. If the State were to triple the average 
time served so that everyone serves 10 years and were able to triple 
their prison budget, the worst criminals would still serve exactly what 
they serve today, the 10 years, and the taxpayer will have been bilked 
of billions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, furthermore the States are already spending tens of 
billions of dollars on prison construction. The Federal money, less 
than half a billion dollars, cannot possibly make any measurable 
difference either in the number of prison beds to be built or in the 
reduction in crime. But if that money is spent in prevention, we can 
make a difference.
  This amendment assures that at least some of the money will be used 
to encourage States to adopt crime reduction approaches that actually 
will reduce crime. Of the approximately $250 million, $80 million would 
go to increasing funds for building and running boys' and girls' clubs 
in public housing and other sites for at-risk youth. Boys' and girls' 
clubs have been shown through study and research to be cost-effective 
ways of reducing crime for both at-risk youth when they are young and 
when they become adults.
  Another $40 million would go to grants to combat violence against 
women. $13 million would go to court-appointed special advocates to 
help troubled youth in the criminal justice system, and $8 million for 
the child abuse training programs funded in the bill. All of those are 
aimed at child abuse reduction. It is well documented that reducing 
family violence and child abuse will reduce crime.
  The amendment also provides $37 million for residential drug 
treatment for prisoners before they are released and approximately $75 
million for drug courts. Both prison drug treatment and drug courts 
have been shown to significantly reduce crime. The drug court program 
has been studied and compared to other persons who are sent to jail, 
and a year after completion of either the drug court or the prison 
sentence, they have found that those completing the drug court program 
had an 11 percent recidivism rate, while those who were sent to prison 
had a 68-percent recidivism rate. Moreover, those completing the drug 
court program had a cost of about $1,000, while those completing prison 
were in prison at a cost of $15,000 to $30,000. These funds would 
therefore not only reduce crime, but also save money.
  The amendment also adds $4 million to the fund which supports law 
enforcement families.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have a problem putting people in jail in this 
country. The United States trades places with Russia year to year as 
the world's greatest incarcerator. This year Russia is ahead with 690 
prisoners per 100,000, and the United States is a close second at 600 
per 100,000, whereas the international average is only about 100 
prisoners per 100,000 population. In some of our inner-city 
communities, the incarceration rate actually exceeds 3,000 per 100,000. 
So it is not a question of putting too few people in jail, and this 
amendment does not suggest that we incarcerate any less than we already 
do. It just says that if you are going to spend new money, we ought to 
use the money to encourage States to adopt crime reduction strategies 
which have been actually shown to reduce crime.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Scott was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the half billion dollars in truth-in-
sentencing prison funding will not have a measurable effect in the 
crime rate because States are already spending tens of billions of 
dollars in prison construction, but this amendment will make the huge 
increases in proven crime prevention initiatives possible. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that at least half of 
the money slated to be wasted on a few new prison beds will be 
redirected to productive use in actually reducing crime.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this would take $258,750,000 from the State prison 
grant, cutting in half the resources to build and expand much needed 
prison space. The gentleman's amendment is an attack on an important 
crime policy that has been passed by the Congress, the policy that 
requires persons who commit crimes be held accountable by serving 
prison time that fits the crime. The gentleman has offered amendments 
the last 2 years that would do nothing more than undo this policy. The 
point he is trying to make is that prisons do not work.

                              {time}  2015

  But his attempts have failed because it is recognized that crime is 
reduced when violent criminals stay locked up and off the streets. We 
are seeing the fruits of that policy today as crime rates are dropping, 
as more criminals are locked up.
  Before Congress passed the Violent Offender Truth In Sentencing law, 
violent offenders were serving only about 43 percent of their 
sentences. That means in 1994, murderers with an average sentence of 16 
years were released after serving only 7\1/2\ years. Rapists sentenced 
to 9 years were released after just 5.
  This program is the only source of funding to help the States build 
prisons. Last year 48 States received funding through this program. 
With this money States built prisons, jails, juvenile facilities, and 
developed tougher sentencing policies, policies that assure offenders 
serve at least 85 percent of the sentence they receive. They deserve 
the support of Congress to insure that adequate bed space is available 
to maintain those kinds of policies. An estimated 9,000 new prison beds 
will be

[[Page H7806]]

built with last year's prison funding, and we can expect 9,600 more 
offenders to be taken off the streets of our country as a result.
  While the gentleman's amendment would increase funding for other 
important crime programs, this bill already provides substantial 
increases for the programs that he has mentioned. For example, we 
already provide a $109 million increase for Violence Against Women Act 
programs. That is $57 million more than the President asked us and a 
44-percent increase over current year. We already more than double the 
State prison drug treatment program by fully funding the President's 
request of $63 million. He would also earmark an additional $80 million 
of funds from the local law enforcement block grant for Boys and Girls 
Clubs, which the bill already provides a $20 million boost for. This 
would take away much needed funds from the block grant for locally 
driven crime priorities such as law enforcement personnel, overtime, 
technology for our law enforcement people and equipment, safety 
measures around schools and drugs courts.
  Mr. Chairman, crime is down across this country because we have 
provided a full arsenal of anticrime measures, more police with the 
tools and equipment they need, more prison space to make sure that 
criminals are held accountable for their crimes, and quality prevention 
programs designed to reduce risks. We cannot afford to lose the ground 
that we have gained against crime in the last few years.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, on this amendment or one similar to it, 326 
Members, a majority of both parties, voted to support the State prison 
grant program and to defeat the gentleman's amendment which would have 
gutted the program. Three hundred twenty-six Members voted ``no'' on 
this amendment last year; I want to better that record at least by one.
  I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise to oppose this amendment which I know that the gentleman from 
Virginia is offering in all good conscience. He and I served together 
on the Committee on the Judiciary for a long time, and I know his views 
and I know they are sincere. But as the chairman of this committee has 
said so eloquently, there is a lot of money in this bill already for 
prevention programs, the specific ones the gentleman wants to shift 
money from the prison truth in sentencing program to.
  But overall in the entire system for delinquent and at-risk youth we 
have over $4 billion, that is with a B, $4 billion currently being 
spent, and even more would be appropriated through this appropriations 
cycle. There are over 120 individual programs for these delinquent and 
at risk youths in 13 different agencies of the Federal Government. I 
think that many of those programs probably could be consolidated, but I 
support many of them. I think they are very good and fine. But to take 
away over half the money or at least half the money in the truth in 
sentencing prison program to add to this $4 billion that we are already 
spending on prevention just does not make any sense.
  The truth in sentencing grant program was established in 1995. It has 
worked well since that time. What it has done, and what came through 
the committee I serve on as chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, what it is designed to do is 
to provide incentives to States to take the most violent repeat 
offenders and lock them up for at least 85 percent of their sentences.
  As we began years ago talking about this, prisoners who committed 
these violent crimes were only serving about a third of their 
sentences, then we got up to about 40 percent. Now, thanks to the fact 
that we have these truth in sentencing grants, we will be giving money 
to States to build more prisons if they will, in turn, agree to 
incarcerate their violent prisoners or felons for at least 85 percent 
of their sentence. We now have half the States who have adopted this, 
and we have States on average throughout this country with violent 
prisoners serving at least 50 percent of their sentences.
  Now we need to get that up more. We need to get more than 25 of the 
50 States doing this. And if we put out the $500 million in this bill 
that is there today as an incentive to the States and say, ``Look,'' to 
those other 25 States, ``you can join with those 25 that have already 
adopted this policy and get money to build more prisons as you need 
it,'' I think more States will do that, and I think we will rise from 
half the States, 25 up to 30, 40, maybe all 50 States who adopt the 
rule that says that if one commits a violent felony, especially if they 
are a repeat violent felon, they are going to serve at least 85 percent 
of their sentence.
  Now why is that important? It is important because, first of all, 
violent felons who go back out on the street again are the ones 
committing most other violent felonies. The crime rate in many of our 
States, especially the violent rate, is down, primarily because these 
violent felons that are the repeat ones are not getting back on the 
streets again to commit those crimes again, so they are being 
incapacitated.
  And in addition to that, by having people serve pretty much their 
full sentences, by having really truth in sentencing across this 
Nation, we are sending a deterrent message. We are saying to the 
criminal population and the would-be criminals, ``You do the crime, you 
do the time.'' And it is a powerful message. Criminals do pay attention 
to such things, and in many cases they are deterred. But where they are 
not deterred, and of course many are not unfortunately, they are put 
away for long periods of time. They should be put away. They are really 
worst of the worst, should have the key thrown away, they should be 
locked in prison and just throw that key away. That is the objective.
  Now again nobody is going to argue that we should not have some of 
these programs that the gentleman from Virginia wants to shift this 
money to. We already do have those programs. We should adequately fund 
those programs. But we should not do so at the expense of a program 
designed to protect the American public from the very worst violent 
criminals in this country, from those of the repeat violent felons. We 
need to have violent felons serving at least 85 percent of their 
sentences so that when some judge gives the sentence that says they are 
going to get 20 years, they are going to serve almost 20 years or very 
close to it, not out in a couple, 3 years as has been all too often the 
case. If somebody gets 40 years in prison, they ought to be serving 
pretty close to 40 years, 35 years or something like that. They should 
not be back out on the street again when they have served 8 or 10 
years. The American justice system will not work until that happens.
  So I urge the defeat of this amendment. We need to have the moneys 
going for the purposes they are intended in the underlying bill and the 
appropriations, the $500 million, to build more prisons for those 
States that are willing to adopt the rule of truth in sentencing that 
requires that those who commit these violate crimes serve at least 85 
percent of their sentences and use other money to do the prevention 
programs.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just like to point out that one thing the proponents often 
leave out when they talk about 85 percent of the time is that the time 
given is less. For example, in Virginia we abolished parole and adopted 
the rhetoric of truth in sentencing. A 10-year sentence where some got 
out in a year and a half, some got out in 10 years, the average is 2\1/
2\, we doubled the average time served to 5 years. But the most heinous 
criminals, those that could never make parole, were getting out in half 
the time they would have served. They will serve all 5 years, which is 
half the time they would have been able to serve if they had been, if 
the parole board had been able to deny the parole to the most 
dangerous, most heinous criminals. When one says 85 percent, one ought 
to say 85 percent of what, and the cost of getting up to half where the 
most dangerous criminals that get out in half the time, Virginia is in 
the process of spending $2 billion to do that. This amount of money 
that we are talking about nationally is less

[[Page H7807]]

than a billion dollars, much less than a billion dollars. Virginia 
alone spent $2 billion, and the most dangerous criminals will be 
getting out in half the time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want 
to commend my colleague from Virginia [Mr. Scott] for bringing forward 
this amendment and rise in support of the amendment. There is no doubt 
that the popular political rhetoric and probably the vote, as the 
chairman of the committee has indicated, will be in favor of 
incarcerating more and more people.
  The truth of the matter, however, is that every single study 
including studies by the Rand Corp., a very conservative group, 
indicate that they are just wrong in terms of what is effective in 
reducing crime. And we have studied those things, we have brought them 
to the attention of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and notwithstanding that we keep devoting 
more and more and more money to the construction of prisons and prison 
beds, when if we just took a step back and looked at what actually 
works to reduce the incidence of crime in this country and did not 
yield to the temptation to just do what is politically popular and 
politically expedient, we would find that what the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott] is saying is absolutely correct and we should 
support the gentleman's amendment.
  I will not belabor the point. I know where the body is going to go on 
this because it is a lot more popular to beat oneself on the chest and 
say one is being hard on crime, but we have a legislative 
responsibility here to try to do something that is effective, not just 
politically popular.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment, and I want 
to recognize that my friend from Virginia is offering this amendment in 
good faith and certainly well-intended, but I disagree on the policy 
statement reflected in this amendment.
  One of the problems that I see in our Federal anticrime efforts and 
law enforcement efforts in this country is a lack of commitment and a 
lack of consistency in our programs. If we reflect back in the drug war 
that we initiated in the 1980's, we had soaring drug rates, we put in 
massive and substantial Federal efforts in this, and yet we saw in 1992 
those efforts starting to decline. We changed our programs. We were 
starting to make progress with teen experimentation with drugs, we 
started to make progress in other areas of our drug war, and yet we 
stopped the substantial effort and the interdiction and other programs, 
and this saw the trend go back up again.
  We have to have consistency in our Federal programs, and now our 
Federal truth in sentencing law is working, it is building public 
confidence and acting as a deterrent, and this grant program to the 
States is working with them as well. It is not the time to retreat from 
this very important program. One-half the States, as already has been 
pointed out, are participating in this program, receiving funding, 
moving toward truth in sentencing laws.

                              {time}  2030

  Violent crime is down. We cannot chop one-half of the funds to this 
important program and expect it to be effective; $258 million to be cut 
off would render this program useless. It would be a shift in our 
Federal priorities and would send the wrong signal to the criminals.
  Let me ask, why is Truth in Sentencing important? I believe it is 
important not simply because it perhaps increases punishment, but Truth 
in Sentencing is important because it restores public confidence in our 
criminal justice system. As someone said, when we create a system in 
which death does not mean death, life does not mean life, and a term of 
10 years means 18 months with time off for good behavior, it is 
understandable that the public is cynical and mistrustful of that 
system. We are reversing that trend State by State with Truth in 
Sentencing laws.
  So it is important to build public confidence.
  Second, it is important as a deterrent. Criminals right now do not 
want to go to Federal court. If they have a preference, they would 
rather go to many State courts because they know there is more 
flexibility, they know the sentences do not mean what they say. So the 
tough sentencing guidelines do provide a deterrent effect.
  In 1992, the Department of Justice reported that convicted violent 
offenders only served 60 percent. Only 60 percent of them are sentenced 
to prison. That has changed. Since 1993, the murder rate has dropped 23 
percent, rape has decreased 12 percent, and robbery has decreased 21 
percent. So there has been an effective deterrent toward violent crime. 
We must maintain down that path.
  Let us not take a step in the wrong direction. Let us not retreat. 
Let us stick with the program that works. For this reason, I would urge 
my colleagues to oppose the Scott amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to this section?


                 Amendment No. 55 Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 55.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 55 offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 29, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to change the 
funding of the Drug Courts Program from $30 to $60 million, a program 
which has already proven to be a tremendous success in reducing 
recidivism rates and encouraging rehabilitation for nonviolent first 
time drug offenders.
  What are Drug Courts? What do they do? Drug Courts programs interview 
and assess selected nonviolent drug offenders and match qualified 
candidates with the appropriate level of treatment, whether it is in an 
outpatient or residential program or narcotics anonymous or alcoholics 
anonymous meetings. All participants undergo mandatory drug testing 
throughout their treatment.
  Drug Court programs also coordinate the drug addiction programs with 
other rehabilitation programs, including vocational training and job 
placement services, so that a successful graduate of the program is 
prepared to contribute to society.
  Successful Drug Court programs emphasize rehabilitation for one time, 
nonviolent drug offenders, and as a result reduce the need for new 
prison construction and the attendant costs.
  The Drug Courts Program was funded at $30 million in fiscal year 
1997. The President requested $75 million for the Drug Courts Program, 
an increase of $45 million. Unfortunately, the committee chose to fund 
the Drug Courts Program at last year's level of $30 million.
  At the same time, the amount proposed for State prison grants is 
$517.5 million, which is $30 million more than provided in fiscal year 
1997. This amendment would simply maintain the current funding to the 
State prison grant program at the same level as last year. The 
amendment would shift the proposed $30 million increase for the State 
prison grant program to the Drug Courts Program.
  Preliminary data has shown that Drug Courts have saved the taxpayers 
money by spending less than $2,500 annually per offender. The Drug 
Courts Program saves the $20,000 to $50,000 annual cost of 
incarcerating drug using offenders. Successful Drug Court programs 
reduced the need to build more prison cells with the capital cost of up 
to $80,000 per sell.
  Drug Courts have already been shown to work, even though they are 
relatively recent. The American University Drug Court Clearinghouse 
studied the effect of Drug Court programs and found over 70 percent of 
the 30,000 offenders placed in Drug Court programs in the past seven 
years either successfully completed or are currently enrolled in Drug 
Court programs. That

[[Page H7808]]

means 70 percent of all of those offenders are turning their lives 
around and contributing to society as productive citizens.
  Society gains, nonviolent first time drug offenders contribute, and 
we target our focus of incarceration on the really serious violent 
habitual offenders. Drug Courts not only save taxpayer money on new 
prison construction, they free up jail space for these violent and 
habitual offenders. Drug Courts are an appropriate response to the 
crisis in our courts and judicial system where we have been pursuing a 
one-size-fits-all approach to the epidemic of drugs.
  The American Bar Association Journal described Los Angeles's 
successful Drug Court Program, which handles defendants from my 
district in south-central Los Angeles. Drug Courts defendants in Los 
Angeles get 12 to 14 months of treatment, including drug tests five 
times a week for at least the first 6 months. A defendant must test 
clean for 6 straight months before graduation. Defendants who are 
expelled from the program must face their original charges, like any 
other defendant. But the success rate in Los Angeles is nearly 45 
percent. In fact, of the court's 120 graduates since 1995, less than 10 
percent have been rearrested on any felony charge. That is compared to 
a 70 percent recidivism rate for most drug offenders.
  We need to use our dollars well. We have been overincarcerating those 
first time, nonviolent offenders that can be rehabilitated instead of 
targeting the drug kingpins who have been shipping drugs into our 
communities and using murder and corruption to protect their narco 
profits.
  The Congressional Black Caucus has made the fight against drugs our 
No. 1 priority.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of rhetoric about dealing with the 
problem of drugs in our society, a lot of public relation efforts, a 
lot of just say no. And when we have the opportunity to really do 
something about drugs, I wonder what we are thinking when, in fact, we 
do not do something like increase the funding for Drug Courts, who have 
shown, who have proven, that they can turn these drug traffickers 
around, these first time offenders around.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this very common sense 
amendment and expand the very successful Drug Courts programs 
nationwide.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I know 
that lots of people think the Drug Courts are wonderful, and in some 
communities they are, I am quite sure of that. The General Accounting 
Office, however, in a study within the last year, says that the 
validity and the usefulness of Drug Courts is not something they can 
make a conclusive statement, positively saying they are a benefit in 
every community. As a matter of fact, it is a very inconclusive report.
  That is why historically I have personally opposed setting aside 
specific money for Drug Courts at the Federal level and saying here is 
a pot of money, if you establish a Drug Court, take it.
  Instead, I much prefer the method we have done with most prevention 
programs now in the last couple of years and is the case in this bill, 
and that is to set aside a specific large sum of money, in this case 
$500 million, $1 billion was authorized, but $500 million has been 
appropriated the last couple of years and is in this bill, as block 
grants to the cities and the counties of this country to spend fighting 
crime as they see fit.
  If a city wants to set up a Drug Court, they can use some of that 
$500 million and set up a Drug Court. If they prefer and do not believe 
that is the most effective thing for their community, they can buy a 
new police car. If they would rather have midnight basketball, they can 
choose to do that. It is the local community's choice how to spend the 
money. Maybe they need more police officers, they could even spend the 
money for that.
  But to set aside even more money than this bill does, the bill sets 
aside $30 million in addition to the block grants, and any of the money 
in the block grants could be used for Drug Courts, it already sets 
aside $30 million separate and apart and in addition to that 
specifically for Drug Courts, to take more money and take it out of the 
Truth in Sentencing grant program for this purpose, is not a good 
public policy and not a good thing to do, in my judgment.
  I would point out that Truth in Sentencing is already underfunded, 
and I commend the gentleman from Kentucky, I know all the problems he 
has in funding these programs, that he has increased it slightly, a 
little bit above $500 million this year, but the $30 million the 
gentlewoman points out is only a drop in the bucket, in the shortage we 
have in this program.

  We had authorized $1 billion for Truth in Sentencing prison grants 
for the next several years. We have not been able to fund them but at 
half that rate. The little inching up that the gentleman from Kentucky 
and his colleagues on the appropriations subcommittee have been able to 
do is not adequate.
  We need to be providing enough money in the Truth in Sentencing 
grants to the states that are willing to change their laws to get those 
other 25 states to change their laws, to make sure that those who 
commit repeat violent felonies serve at least 85 percent of their 
sentences, instead of the 50 percent or in some cases the third they do 
now, and to fund adequately those states that have already bought into 
the program, there are some 25 states that are already there, and as 
the gentleman from Arkansas pointed out a few minutes ago in discussing 
Truth in Sentencing grants, we need to be consistent. We need to 
continue to keep our promises and say look, to those 25 states, you 
knew you were going to get money when you changed your laws to go to 
this Truth in Sentencing concept, to up the length of time somebody who 
commits a felony has to serve to 85 percent of their sentence. Now we 
will give you some money. You have been expecting that to come along.
  But we cannot afford to be pulling any away from them as we have more 
states come on line who are willing to buy into the program. We do not 
want to diminish the amount of money the states are getting who are 
already committing themselves and are building these new prisons. We 
want them to be able to finish building those prisons, the ones that 
are already committed, and be able to bring on line some more.
  That is why the gentleman has very slightly plussed up the $500 
million or so, and the gentlewoman would take away that little bit that 
he has added to the Truth in Sentencing grants and move it over to the 
Drug Courts area.
  Again, I would say Drug Courts in some communities are fine, I see 
nothing wrong with them, although the reports are inconclusive about 
them. But I think that we ought to leave it at the present funding 
level for targeted Drug Courts, $30 million, and then any city or 
county in this country that wants to use some of their block grant 
moneys, $500 million spread out all over the country, lots of money 
going out to these communities, any of them that want to use them for 
Drug Courts, think that that is a better idea than spending their crime 
fighting money on something else, and it may well be, can do so.
  Therefore, I urge the defeat of this amendment the gentlewoman 
offered.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree that the 
information that is available about the Drug Courts show the success 
rate that I indicated in my presentation to the House?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say the 
gentlewoman's presentation was relying on studies that are not the GAO 
study I referred to, and they, as far as I know, are accurate to the 
degree they are there.
  But the General Accounting Office, that reports to Congress when we 
request it, has reported the effectiveness of Drug Courts as 
inconclusive, they do not have enough data, do not have enough success 
stories.
  I would submit to the gentlewoman, and I would give her the benefit 
of the doubt, and say this Member would like to believe and does 
believe Drug Courts generally are effective. But that does

[[Page H7809]]

not mean we should put more money specifically targeted to them. There 
is plenty of money available for them. If they are successful as I hope 
they are and the gentlewoman believes, then the block grant program 
will fully fund them.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words and rise in opposition to the amendment.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would 
reduce the State prison grant funding by $30 million. I have already 
stated the reason why we should not do that in the previous amendment.
  The money would be used to increase funding for drug courts, which is 
another important crime program. I am here saying that I agree that 
drug courts work, and that is the reason why we have already included 
funding for them in the bill. The gentlewoman's amendment is not 
necessary.
  In addition to the $30 million already provided in the bill for the 
drug court program specifically, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters] should be aware that local communities can also use funding 
from the local law enforcement block grant for that purpose. Last year, 
in fact, localities chose to use $15 million of that money for drug 
courts.
  We include $523 million for the local law enforcement block grant, 
which the President's request would have eliminated. Localities with 
choose to use any amount of that money for drug courts, and I would 
encourage them to do that, because I agree with the gentlewoman that 
they are very effective.
  At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment, because the prison grant program is absolutely working.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. I rise to support the amendment submitted by my 
esteemed chairwoman, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Mr. Chairman, we heard earlier about the $200 million increase in the 
funding for drug programs, but Mr. Chairman, almost all of that money 
is for interdiction. This amendment addresses the needs of thousands in 
our community who are ill with the disease of drug addiction. People, 
even when they seek help, are turned away, less than 30 percent being 
able to receive needed treatment, and who crowd our jails.
  Mr. Chairman, drug courts have been proven to provide a deterrent to 
drug-related crime, and we know that up to 85 percent of all criminal 
defendants are arrested under the influence or charged with crimes 
committed to support their substance abuse illness. Drug courts allow 
us to coordinate rather than duplicate programs, thus increasing the 
effectiveness of the funds and the programs that are available. They 
reduce recidivism, which reduces the impact on our communities, the 
courts, and the criminal justice system, and drug courts are cost-
effective.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very worthy amendment. The States will not 
need the additional $30 million for prisons if we put it into drug 
courts, but more importantly, Mr. Chairman, many who have nowhere to 
turn and who depend on us to provide the help and the treatment they 
need will be given the chance that they deserve for a better life.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentlewoman aware of the arguments 
that have been made by some of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle who have said over and over again, we cannot stop the use of 
drugs through interdiction, that we must decrease the demand, and while 
that argument has been made, we find that there is not a willingness to 
do what it takes to decrease the demand.
  These drug courts are proven to be successful, and I appreciate the 
fact that the gentlewoman who chairs this subcommittee agrees with me. 
If, in fact, they are successful; if, in fact, we have the 
documentation to prove that they are successful; if, in fact, we are 
decreasing demand, are we not through these drug courts doing what 
those on the other side of the aisle have indicated we must do? Is that 
not the gentlewoman's understanding about what they have been saying in 
terms of decreasing the demand?
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, yes, I am aware. Also, it was 
pointed out in one of the studies that out of 30,000 convicted 
criminals who went into drug courts, 70 percent, they have a 70 percent 
success rate. Seventy percent of those people over a 7-year period have 
not returned to crime or to drugs. That is a figure that we cannot 
argue with. It works, and we should support this amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard about the need to get tough on crime and 
have people serve 85 percent of their time. They keep leaving out the 
fact that the time to be served is going to be less. As I indicated, in 
Virginia, a 10-year sentence where Charles Manson would have served all 
10 years has been converted; where others may have gotten out early, 
Charles Manson would have served 10 years. Now, he will get out in half 
the time, but he will serve all 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the cost of that, to have Charles Manson serve as much 
as half of his time, will cost Virginia about $2 billion. Even the 
supporters, after you have doubled the average time served, Charles 
Manson, of course, will serve less time, double the average time 
served, they only promise approximately 3 percent reduction in crime. I 
think arguments could poke holes in the 3 percent, but if we give them 
the benefit of the doubt, we are spending billions of dollars for 
virtually no measurable reduction in crime.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a more cost-effective way of dealing with 
crime, and the drug court program is certainly one of those strategies. 
It uses the criminal justice system as a hammer to make sure the 
defendants are serious about drug rehabilitation. The money can be used 
not just for the court system, but also for services, because many 
courts have no local services to which they can refer the defendants. 
So the money can be used to establish meaningful rehabilitation.
  Mr. Chairman, drug rehabilitation has been studied over and over 
again. The gentleman from Florida has indicated one study that he said 
was inconclusive, but the study in California showed that there was so 
much crime reduction and reduced health care expenses that the State 
saved $7 for every dollar they put into drug rehabilitation.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a win/win possibility here. We cannot only 
reduce expenses, but also, we can reduce crime. We have to have the 
political courage to do it. I would hope that we would accept the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to transfer funds to 
the drug courts.
  The statistics indicate that 56 percent of the people in our Federal 
prisons are in there on direct drug charges for possession or sale or 
distribution. When we add to that 56 percent figure the people who are 
in there because they robbed somebody or broke into somebody's house or 
mugged somebody or stole something because they had a drug habit that 
they were trying to support, the figure goes up over 80 percent.
  So, if we could get some effective way of dealing with that 56 
percent who are in there for direct drug charges, if we could treat 
them, if we could deal with them more intensively; many of them are 
first-time users or sellers, first-time charged people. If we could 
attack that problem, we would attack the robberies, the break-ins, the 
muggings, the thefts that result because people are strung out on 
drugs.
  Now, what is the most effective tool in our whole system for dealing 
with those charged with drug offenses, especially first-time, minor 
offenses? It is drug courts, because drug courts, in drug courts they 
go and they deal intensively with the problem that is causing people to 
be in the court in the

[[Page H7810]]

first place. That is why they have been shown to be effective.
  Right in North Carolina, my home State, they have already determined 
that that is one of the most effective ways to deal with drug charges 
and to deal with the consequences that come thereafter from drug 
charges. They put these people on intensive probation. They try to deal 
with their home situation. They try to find them jobs. They try to keep 
them reporting over and over to the courts, and they try to provide 
some kind of treatment for the problem, rather than just putting them 
in jail, keeping them there for a while, putting them back out on the 
street; they go right back to the drug habit that they had, and then 
they are back for the second time. They go to jail again, serve some 
time, go back out on the street, still with the same habit, and then 
the next thing we know they are back in court for the third time.
  There is no more effective program to deal with drug offenses, 
especially in the earlier cycles, the first-time offenses, second-time 
offenses, than drug courts, because they recognize the source of the 
problem. And if we are not going to take responsibility to get to the 
source of the problem, we are never going to deal with the problem of 
drugs in this country. We cannot deal with it. We cannot put enough 
people in jail to jail our way out of this problem. We cannot interdict 
enough at somebody else's borders to deal with our problems unless we 
attack the problem at the source, which is demand. We are not going to 
get to the source of the problem; we are not going to solve the 
problem; we are not going to improve the problem.
  So, my colleagues, let us just try to do what makes sense. Sure, it 
makes political sense. It is politically expedient to put more money in 
prisons, but imprisoning a first-time drug user rather than dealing 
with them at the source of their problem in a drug court makes no 
sense. It is not cost-effective to do it that way.
  I simply urge my colleagues to consider seriously the gentlewoman's 
amendment and support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to the bill through page 32, line 6?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       Weed and Seed Program Fund

         For necessary expenses, including salaries and related 
     expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to 
     implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, $40,000,000, 
     which shall be obligated by July 1, 1998, for 
     intergovernmental agreements, including grants, cooperative 
     agreements, and contracts, with State and local law 
     enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of violent crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and 
     Seed'' designated communities, and for either reimbursements 
     or transfers to appropriation accounts of the Department of 
     Justice and other Federal agencies which shall be specified 
     by the Attorney General to execute the ``Weed and Seed'' 
     program strategy: Provided,  That funds designated by 
     Congress through language for other Department of Justice 
     appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed'' program 
     activities shall be managed and executed by the Attorney 
     General through the Executive Office for Weed and Seed: 
     Provided further,  That the Attorney General may direct the 
     use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in 
     support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after 
     the Attorney General notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in accordance with section 605 of this Act.

                  Community Oriented Policing Services


                    violent crime reduction programs

         For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 (``the 
     1994 Act'') (including administrative costs), $1,400,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, which shall be derived 
     from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for Public 
     Safety and Community Policing Grants pursuant to title I of 
     the 1994 Act: Provided,  That not to exceed 186 permanent 
     positions and 186 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $20,553,000 shall be expended for program management and 
     administration: Provided further, That of the unobligated 
     balances available in this program, $100,000,000 shall be 
     used for innovative community policing programs, of which 
     $35,000,000 shall be used for a law enforcement technology 
     program, $35,000,000 shall be used for policing initiatives 
     in drug ``hot spots'', and $30,000,000 shall be used for 
     policing initiatives to combat methamphetamine trafficking.
       In addition, for programs of Police Corps education, 
     training and service as set forth in sections 200101-200113 
     of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-322), $20,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, which shall be derived from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund.


                       Juvenile Justice Programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith to be transferred and merged 
     with the appropriations for Justice Assistance, $225,922,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That these 
     funds shall be available for obligation and expenditure upon 
     enactment of reauthorization legislation for the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (H.R. 1818 or 
     comparable legislation).
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance, $5,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, for developing, testing, and demonstrating programs 
     designed to reduce drug use among juveniles.
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act of 1990, as amended, $7,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 214B of such Act.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       On Page 34, line 13 insert after $225,922,000 the 
     following: ``(increased by $750,000)''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first acknowledge the 
Chairman, Mr. Rogers, of this committee and the ranking member, Mr. 
Mollohan, for their cooperative spirit in this very, very challenging 
problem.
  I would like to read the following to my Colleagues that in 1996 the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that it executed search 
warrants in 20 cities as part of an ongoing nationwide investigation 
into the use of computer on-line services and the Internet to lure 
minors into illicit sexual relationships and to distribute child 
pornography using computers.
  This amendment would allow the Department of Justice to enter into a 
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 to children of 
pornographic images through electronic media, including the Internet 
and on-line services.
  Additionally, this amendment could provide for the identification of 
illegal pornographic images with the goal of criminally prosecuting 
those purveyors of such pornographic images to children.
  The estimated cost of this study is $750,000. This amendment would 
increase funds in Sec. I, the Department of Justice part of H.R. 2267.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, as I yield to the gentleman, let me simply say that 
this also does not impact on my commitment to Internet and 
telecommunicating technologies, and it also gives the Justice 
Department or would give them the time to do this study.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman has brought up a 
very, very salient point. Her amendment is well-deserved. I am prepared 
to accept it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
kindness.
  I simply want to acknowledge that as the Justice Department proceeds 
to do this study, I would encourage the chairman and the ranking member 
to be of further assistance. I do not think any Member would want to 
vote to have children have access to pornography. This legislation is 
for the children. Let us get pornography off the Internet.

[[Page H7811]]

  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to add $750,000 to the 
juvenile justice programs to the Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations bill before the House today because our law enforcement 
community needs our help in order to better protect our Nation's 
children. I cannot imagine any Member of this body will speak against 
this amendment and in support of the purveyors of pornography, but I 
would hope that this amendment can be considered by the full House on 
its own merits. For this reason, I am offering this amendment to 
prevent children from being subjected to pornography on the Internet to 
the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill.
  This amendment would direct that the Department of Justice enter into 
a 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 to children of 
pornographic images through electronic media including the Internet and 
online services. Additionally, this amendment would provide for the 
identification of illegal pornographic images with the goal of 
criminally prosecuting those purveyors of such pornographic 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.
  The funding for this amendment would come from funds otherwise 
appropriated therefore revenue neutral to the Department of Justice, 
which should not exceed $750,000. I would like to ask that you join me 
in support of this amendment to help eliminate the growing threat of 
pornographic images that our children who use the technology must face. 
We can act today to help all of our Nation's children have a safer 
future.
  This amendment would address the capabilities of present-day, 
computer-based control technologies for controlling electronic 
transmission of pornographic images, and our ability to impose 
technological restrictions on access of these images by children. It 
will also address research needed to develop computer-based control 
technologies to the point of practical utility for controlling the 
electronic transmission of pornographic images. The research that is 
conducted as a result of this amendment would look at the inherent 
limitations of computer-based control technologies for controlling 
electronic transmission of pornographic images.
  The estimated cost of $750,000, in funding for this amendment would 
come from already appropriated funds. I would like to ask my colleagues 
to join me in support of this amendment.
  On December 1996, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that 
it executed search warrants in 20 cities as part of an ongoing 
nationwide investigation into the use of computer online services and 
the Internet to lure minors into illicit sexual relationships and to 
distribute child pornography using computers.
  FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said, that the ``searches are a 
continuation of a highly successful investigation which has resulted in 
many convictions * * *. These cases have already revealed the ease and 
frequency with which criminals have used modern technology to cause 
grave harm to children.''
  Director Freeh went on to say that ``The safety of children demands 
aggressive enforcement of the law.'' I say that the safety of children 
demands the aggressive research prescribed by this amendment to provide 
the aggressive enforcement of the law using the best methods available.
  The work that the FBI is engaged in is commendable, but they could 
use additional resources that could be identified by the research 
authorized by this amendment. They currently are not using image 
identification to locate or block the access of children to the 
pornographic images.
  We must and should act to direct through this amendment the work that 
the Department of Justice should be engaged to protect our Nation's 
children. Any delay can mean that countless lives could be lost or 
interrupted by the predators of children which have been known to use 
the Internet to lure their victims away from the safety of their 
families.
  I ask that my colleagues allow the inclusion of this amendment in the 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations because this issue should not 
and cannot wait.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I just want to be clear about the 
acceptance of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. Do we need to call for a 
vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question.
  Are there further remarks?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                 Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 35.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 34, line 13, after dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $74,100,000)''.
       Page 49, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $74,100,000)''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly straightforward. 
It is controversial to those who are receiving a subsidy from the 
Federal Government. It is not controversial in any other way.
  The purpose of this amendment is to further fund juvenile justice 
block grants. It is to make an additional impact for the youth in our 
country. There are very alarming statistics that we need to deal with 
in terms of our young people. We have heard some of those tonight. But 
one of the things that the statistics do bear out is that the 
intervention programs that we have across the board are underfunded.
  The statistics also bear out that the intervention programs we have 
are being successful. The FBI estimates that juvenile violent crimes 
will double by the year 2010. More than 260,000 juvenile arrests will 
be made. The growth in juvenile homicides and homicides involving 
juvenile offenders has surpassed that among adults. It is a very 
important concept. The number of juvenile homicides committed by 
juveniles has now exceeded the number of homicides that have been 
charged on adults.
  Between 1982 and 1992 juvenile arrests have increased 117 percent, 
which is another statistic reflecting the growing rise in juvenile 
crime.
  Why we should do this. More statistics. Juvenile arrests for 
aggravated assault, a 129-percent increase; juvenile arrests for 
murder, a 145-percent increase; juvenile arrests for forcible rape, 
predicted to increase 66 percent. We have good solutions for these 
problems. The juvenile justice block grant system has many programs 
that are not funded adequately.
  Where do we get the money from? We take the money to support the 
juvenile justice block grant, $74 million, from the Advanced Technology 
Program, a program that has had some good, a program that today has 
$444 million in the pipeline that is not spent, money that has not been 
spent, and we are going to send another $200 million-plus down that 
pipeline.
  Mr. Chairman, that may not be a good enough reason to oppose it. Then 
there is a reason to oppose it based on the people who have been 
getting the grants. International Business Machines, known as Big Blue, 
has received $111,279,000; General Motors, $82,134,000; General 
Electric, $75 million; Ford, $66 million; Sun Microsystems, $50 
million, whose chief executive officer says they do not want this 
program. They do not believe that this is a program for established 
corporations.
  Mr. Chairman, why is it important? Because those very corporations 
that I just listed, here are their earnings last year in net profit. 
International Business Machines earned $5.4 billion. Why should we give 
them $50 million to do research when we cannot take care of the youth 
in our country?
  General Motors earned $4.9 billion net profit. Why should we give 
them $50 million to do research when they will do the research with 
their own profits? Why should we give money to General Electric, who 
earned $7.3 billion last year, and we cannot take care of the juvenile 
justice programs and problems in our country?
  Mr. Chairman, this is a contrast about choices. It is a choice about 
whether the wealthiest corporations we are going to subsidize for R&D, 
or we are going to take care of the disadvantaged youth we just got 
through hearing about, where we do not have enough money for the drug 
court programs, where we do not have enough money for the Challenge 
programs?
  Finally, I want to stop and discuss for a minute one of the programs 
that works, one of the programs that has been highly successful 
throughout this country called the Challenge program.

[[Page H7812]]

 The Challenge Program, there is one of them in Oklahoma. What it has 
done is taken young adults, juveniles, who have been in trouble with 
the law and have given them an opportunity to be self-sufficient, to 
win.
  That program has been trimmed. That program has been cut. We are now 
raising money at the local levels to support Thunderbird Academy in 
Pryor, OK, an academy that has had an impact now in over 500 young 
people's lives, who would be in prison but now are paying taxes, are 
supporting our infrastructure, are actually participating as viable 
members of our society.
  We have a choice to make. We are going to hear, this is a good 
program, that many things came about through this program. I do not 
deny that, that some positive research and benefits came. But when we 
have corporations like Ford Motor, who made $4.4 billion this last 
year, getting $1 million from the taxpayer to fund their research, or 
research they would not otherwise fund, we have to ask ourselves a 
question, are our youth worth it? Are we going to put corporate profits 
ahead of our youth? I do not think this body wants to do that.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would commend the subcommittee chair and the 
ranking member for the good work in putting together this budget bill, 
and for the fact that in this budget we have an increase in juvenile 
crime and prevention dollars of nearly three times what has been in the 
fiscal year 1997 bill, and $157 million more than the President's 
request.
  I would commend my colleagues for understanding what the maker of the 
amendment has eloquently talked about in terms of our juvenile justice 
needs. I would join with the gentleman in expressing a desire to have 
these dollars go for the intended purpose that he has spoken about.
  But I would rise to oppose his amendment, because this really is a 
false choice that he has presented to us. We do have additional 
important dollars for juvenile justice in this bill, which I support 
and would continue to support. But we also have the opportunity as a 
country to move ahead and be competitive with other countries in 
creating jobs for the future through technology.
  Unfortunately, there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation 
about the Advanced Technology Program. Just in the short term since I 
have been here as a Member in January, I know that this was also 
debated last session and voted down, and that there was a tremendous 
amount of misinformation at that time.
  This program, which has been extremely successful in Michigan, is 
about partnering, and the Federal Government coming together with 
industries, like the automobile industry in Michigan, to form a 
partnership between large automobile companies, in our case, small 
business, our universities, and the Federal Government to look at 
systems change.
  The dollars that have come in to us have gone to the universities. It 
is not characterized accurately to say that we are talking about a 
million dollars going to corporations that would otherwise be provided 
in research by the corporation. These are long-term, higher-risk kinds 
of projects that involve the importance of industries working together.
  In a project report that was just put together regarding the Two 
Millimeter program in Michigan, and we have hot off the press a very 
important report about this, they indicate that there are numerous 
problems with a particular business trying to do this on their own; in 
this case, our automobile industry coming together to provide more 
quality in order to be able to compete internationally.

  They indicate that the problem addressed by the Two Millimeter 
project is a systems problem requiring a high level of coordination 
among a number of quite different organizations. The problem at issue 
could not be solved by these individual organizations acting alone.
  Forming large, complex research joint ventures to address a systems 
problem is a daunting effort. The ATP provided the impetus for 
companies to overcome coordination barriers. People that normally 
compete, GM versus Chrysler, all of our companies that normally are 
competing against each other, come together with the Federal Government 
serving as a neutral ground to allow them to organize, to look at long-
term higher risk research that will allow us to create jobs.
  This is about creating jobs. I would like to share with the Members 
some portions of a letter that IBM has submitted in opposition to 
information that was and continues to be shared regarding IBM. I will 
read just a portion of it. This was written to the maker of the 
amendment.
  ``Your Dear Colleague letter of September 18, 1997, about the ATP is 
inaccurate. It misrepresents IBM's participation in the ATP and 
seriously mischaracterizes the program.
  ``Your assertion that IBM has received $111,279,738 in R&D grants is 
wrong,'' is wrong. ``Since 1992 IBM has participated in seven ATP 
projects, of which two were IBM projects and five were joint 
ventures.''
  They go on to explain that in the joint ventures, they have been one 
of over 40 organizations working together with dollars going to 
universities to create partnerships.
  They indicate that ATP enables organizations to share costs, risks, 
and technology expertise in precompetitive R&D, not what the 
corporations would be doing in the short term, but the precompetitive 
high-risk research & development that looks long-term at creating jobs.
  By pooling resources, it allows projects to be pursued that otherwise 
would not happen. Partnership programs like ATP help bridge the gap 
between the lab bench and the marketplace, and help spawn new 
innovations in industries.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. 
Stabenow] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Stabenow was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, if I might just summarize, we are 
competing as a country with other countries today. In those other 
countries, they are operating as a team: business, labor, universities, 
researchers, government, all together, focusing on long-term 
developments, and technologies so they can compete against America.
  If we are not as wise as developing opportunities for teams to come 
together, we will lose the competitive race for new jobs. ATP is a very 
small program authorized by the Committee on Science at continuation 
levels that allows us to continue the ability to compete in a global 
marketplace.
  It is not about corporate subsidies. It is about the ability for 
government and universities, researchers, and businesses, to work 
together to do those kinds of things that will allow us to continue to 
be innovative as a country. It is a very important investment in jobs.

                                            International Business


                                         Machines Corporation,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 1997.
     Hon. Tom A. Coburn,
     Cannon House Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Coburn: Your Dear Colleague letter of 
     September 18, 1997 about the Advanced Technology Program 
     (ATP) is inaccurate. It misrepresents IBM's participation in 
     the ATP and seriously mischaracterizes the program.
       Your assertion that IBM has received $111,279,738 in R&D 
     grants is wrong. Since 1992, IBM has participated in seven 
     ATP projects, of which two were IBM projects and five were 
     joint ventures. Government funding totaled less than $4 
     million over three years in the single company projects. As 
     the ATP requires, this was matched by IBM's own investment. 
     In the joint venture projects, IBM was only one of over 40 
     organizations, including large and small companies and 
     universities, which participated. Government investment in 
     those projects was approximately $40 million over five years. 
     Again, the federal funding was matched by the project 
     participants.
       The ATP enables organizations to share costs, risks, and 
     technology expertise in precompetitive R&D. By pooling 
     resources, it allows projects to be pursued that otherwise 
     would lie dormant. Partnership programs like ATP help bridge 
     the gap between the lab bench and the marketplace and help 
     spawn new innovations and industries. ATP works through 
     rigorous, open competition. It is accessible to all 
     businesses. All costs are at least matched by the 
     participants. Further, ATP provides a ready mechanism for 
     large and small companies to work together. Many small 
     businesses are suppliers to large companies. Cooperative 
     research programs like ATP strengthen them measurably. 
     Smaller companies frequently state that they want to work 
     with larger ones. Through these relationships, they gain 
     access to

[[Page H7813]]

     skills, technology, funding, and potential customers 
     available in no other way.
       In today's world, having the best technology or the best 
     research is not sufficient for a country or company. Success 
     depends upon speed--the time it takes to start new 
     technological solutions. ATP partnerships create connections 
     and enable faster technology introduction. The United States 
     cannot ignore the international context of technology 
     research and development. The nation cannot stand still while 
     foreign infrastructures develop and improve.
       I respectfully request that you reconsider your position 
     and your justification for eliminating the Advanced 
     Technology Program and that you share these facts with your 
     colleagues.
           Sincerely,
                                             Christopher G. Caine.

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] to the Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill. It would transfer $74 million from the $185 
million provided in the bill for the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology's Advanced Technology Program in fiscal year 1998 to the 
Department of Justice's juvenile justice and delinquency prevention 
program.

                              {time}  2115

  While we all support programs to reduce juvenile crimes, and I am on 
record as supporting them, H.R. 2267 already includes $538 million for 
juvenile crime prevention, almost three times the amount appropriated 
last year. I commend the chairman of the committee for so doing.
  This amendment, of course, that has been offered is not an effort to 
fund juvenile justice, but merely simply an attempt to kill the advance 
technology program. The appropriations bill already mirrors the House-
passed authorization for ATP, H.R. 1274, the NIST authorization bill, 
which came from my Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on 
Science, and it passed the House on April 24 of this year.
  That bill funded ATP at $185 million in fiscal year 1998, and that 
level is identical to the funding level in this appropriation bill. So 
it has been authorized and appropriated. The appropriated and 
authorized level for ATP already represents a cut to ATP of $40 million 
from the fiscal year 1997 appropriated level of $225 million. The total 
is $90 million below the administration's request for fiscal year 1998 
and the administration requested $275 million.
  So significant cuts have already been made and funding ATP at $10 
million in fiscal year 1998 would amount to the U.S. Government turning 
its back on its obligations. The problem is that ATP funds long-term, 
5-year research grants. The funding for the remaining years of these 5-
year grants is termed a ``mortgage.''
  According to the administration, ATP is likely to have mortgages 
totaling well over $100 million in fiscal year 1998. And while these 
mortgages are not liabilities for the Federal Government, they do 
represent commitments made by NIST to these research projects.
  Terminating ATP would break NIST's commitments to its existing ATP 
partners. It would be like giving a 4-year scholarship to a student and 
then terminating it without cause after his or her freshman year.
  The House-passed authorization for NIST already reforms ATP. The bill 
includes language to reform the grant process by requiring that grants 
can only go to projects that cannot proceed in a timely manner without 
Federal assistance.
  The bill also increases the match requirements for ATP grant 
recipients to 60 percent for joint ventures and non-small business 
single applicants. Finally, the bill reduces ATP spending to $150 
million in fiscal year 1999. And through these reforms, the House is 
moving ATP in the right direction.
  So with the reforms, the obligations, the fact that we are stressing 
partnerships, we are talking about public-private partnerships that are 
so critically important, that is what this bill does. It has been very 
well-crafted. So with the passage of H.R. 1274, the House took strong 
positive steps to reform ATP. I really do not think we should reverse 
this course now.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that in the report language 
coming out of the committee of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella] that, in fact, what was said was ``In an era of scarce Federal 
research and development dollars, funding ATP is simply a low 
priority''? That's No. 1.
  No. 2, what was also said is that ``ATP can function for 2 years 
without receiving 1 additional dollar from the Federal Government.''
  So why do we not just take this year and not fund the $74 million and 
give it to juvenile justice? It is not going to have an impact in terms 
of funding because the money is not in the pipeline. Why not do that?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, because we have made 
commitments. We have companies working with the Federal Government in 
conjunction with each other. We have reformed the ATP Program. We have 
reduced the ATP. It is a program that needs to continue beyond that.
  The chairman of the committee has already given us a significant 
increase to juvenile justice programs. So I think this public-private 
partnership needs to continue. We are monitoring it so very, very 
closely.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, while I too would be the first person to admit that 
juvenile justice programs should be given the priority in this 
Congress, we have in fact in this bill made them a priority. If the 
purpose of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] is to ensure that 
this program is funded robustly, let me assure him that the committee 
did it for him.
  In fact, the bill before us today provides $237.9 million for this 
line item, an increase of $55 million over the funds provided in fiscal 
year 1997 and $7.5 million above the administration's budget request 
for fiscal year 1998. Let me repeat. We have funded juvenile justice 
delinquency programs very robustly.
  On the one hand, we funded juvenile justice very robustly. We 
appreciate the interest of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] in 
juvenile justice programs. But taking it from the ATP Program, if my 
colleague does want to increase juvenile justice, is not the right 
place to take it.
  I would like to summarize my reasons for supporting this important 
ATP initiative. ATP is paramount to our Nation's global 
competitiveness. We are entering an era where global competitiveness is 
the way we really are going to compete in the world. Funding this 
program does nothing more than put us on a level playing field with our 
major competitors.
  Right now, Mr. Chairman, the United States ranks 28th, 28th behind 
all of our major global competitors in the percentage of government R&D 
invested in civilian technologies. While we sit here debating an 
amendment that would cripple the ATP Program, across the oceans, our 
competitors, Japan, England, Germany, Australia, and Portugal, are 
investing heavily in similar initiatives.
  Japan is spending about $9 billion a year on precompetitive 
technology development, and the European Community is funding advanced 
technology research to the tune of $5.5 billion annually.
  Second, ATP funds precompetitive, generic technology developments 
which would not otherwise be undertaken by private industry. The ATP is 
not corporate welfare and it is not about picking winners and losers. 
The ATP is also not about product development. It is about funding the 
research and development efforts behind high-risk technologies.
  While the Government provides a catalyst, industry conceives, 
manages, and executes ATP projects. ATP funds risky, precompetitive 
technologies that have the potential for a big payoff for our Nation's 
economy as we compete with those competitors that are investing so very 
heavily in similar programs.
  Third, ATP was conceived as a bipartisan initiative. Although the ATP 
Program has become a political issue over the last several years, it 
did not start out that way. It did not start out that way. It had 
bipartisan beginnings.

[[Page H7814]]

 ATP was started under President Reagan's administration and was 
authorized by former Republican Congressman Don Ritter.
  In fact, D. Allan Bromly, President Bush's science advisor, had the 
following to say about the ATP Program: ``In the Bush administration, 
we made a start toward more effective use of our technology strengths 
as, for example, in the successful advanced technology program.''
  It is important to note that while the Clinton administration feels 
strongly about the merits of the ATP, the issues and concerns raised by 
my Republican colleagues have not fallen on deaf ears. In fact, in 
response to Republican concerns, the Commerce Department recently 
completed an extensive review of the ATP Program.

  To allow for broad public input, the Technology Administration 
solicited public comment over a period of 30 days. The Commerce 
Department received 80 responses to this notice predominantly from 
individual firms and professional trade associations. Based on this 
review, Secretary Daley has decided to make several important changes 
to the operation and policies of ATP, changes that will result in a 
stronger, more viable program.
  For example, he plans to shift the priorities of the program by 
putting more emphasis on joint ventures and small- and medium-sized 
single applicants and less emphasis on individual applications filed by 
large companies.
  Additionally, the Secretary plans to increase the cost-share 
requirement for large, single-applicant companies, I think addressing 
legitimate concerns that have come from the other side.
  It is a strong program. It is getting stronger. I urge my colleagues 
in this competitive international environment not to support the 
amendment of the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Coburn, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Mollohan was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a couple questions.
  It is true that new moneys for the ATP Program are for new grants, 
not for grants in the pipeline; is that correct?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is money here 
for new grants.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, it is 
for new grants. So any of the programs that are presently funded by ATP 
and are forward funded in such a manner will not be affected whatsoever 
by any decrease in the amount of ATP funds through this appropriation; 
is that true?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if that would be 
true, what is the point of the gentleman?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the point is that we have a larger problem with juvenile justice and 
children and adolescents in this country where we are not addressing 
it. No matter what we have increased it, we have programs out there 
that are not going to be funded, like the Challenge Program.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is obviously the 
question in debate here, ``Where is our priority? Do we want to 
eliminate a program that is extremely important for our competiveness 
position as we move forward with this internationalization of our 
global economy, or not, and do we believe that this program contributes 
to that?''
  I do. On a bipartisan basis, administrations have. And I hope that 
the body's majority does.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have one other amendment that is pending 
that is going to take some time. We are under a time constraint as it 
is, and we are on the verge of that time constraint.
  Can we conclude debate on this fairly soon? I think we all know how 
we are going to vote anyway. Can we conclude this right away, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would hope that the gentleman's words will be 
taken by Members on the floor.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise because I am on both the Committee on the 
Judiciary and Committee on Science, and I appreciate the leadership of 
the gentleman on this issue of juvenile prevention or juvenile crime 
prevention. We have worked on it for a very long period of time and 
very long hours.
  I would have wished and encouraged the gentleman to have supported 
and been with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], who was here on 
the floor earlier who had a similar piece of legislation, an amendment 
that would have answered the question that the gentleman is now raising 
about the concern of juvenile crime prevention. But let me acknowledge 
that his concern is important but his juxtaposing is not the correct 
way to do it.
  As a member of the Committee on Science, let me say to my colleagues 
that since the inception of the ATP Program, 47 percent of all awarded 
projects have been led by small companies, particularly these ATP 
projects usually associated with universities.
  In addition, even though the gentleman has mentioned that we would 
have ongoing money or money for present projects, we would have no 
money for future projects.
  The reason why it is important that I rise and discuss this is 
because just a few minutes ago, I rose and received the support of the 
chairman and passed an amendment that dealt with technology. That was 
where the Justice Department could enter into $750,000 contract for 24-
month period 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 restrict the availability to children of 
pornographic images through electronic media, including Internet and 
on-line services, as well as identification of illegal pornographic 
images with the goal of prosecution.
  I would never want that to be thought and conceived as being against 
an ATP Program that promotes the workings of those research entities to 
provide jobs for individuals moving into the 21st century.

                              {time}  2130

  Although the gentleman's intent is of high level and of great sense 
of commitment to the concerns dealing with juvenile crime, we already 
are moving in that direction. I applaud the leadership for increasing 
the amount in the bill. I would hope we would get more dollars, but I 
certainly think this is the wrong way.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Coburn amendment 
which would transfer $74 million from the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program in fiscal year 
1998 to the Department of Justice's Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Program.
  Currently, legislation provides $225.9 million for juvenile justice 
programs. However this obligation of funds is dependent upon enactment 
of authorization legislation. At this point the fate of the 
reauthorization bills is uncertain.
  Technology fuels the rapid growth in our Nation's economy. Every 
dollar invested through the Advanced Technology Program is returned 
through jobs, business expansion, and economic growth.
  The Advanced Technology Program is not corporate welfare for large 
companies. The Advanced Technology Program is a competitive, peer 
reviewed, cost-shared program potentially high-payoff enabling 
technologies that otherwise would not be pursued because of technical 
risks and other obstacles that discourage private investment.
  In the city of Houston, SI Diamond Technology, Inc., Applied Training 
Resources, Stress Engineering Services, Inc., and Genometrix, Inc. are 
a few of the firms which have been assisted by this important program.
  Currently, there are 2,200 proposals submitted by industry with over 
700 of which 280 projects were funded. Less than 4 percent of the 
proposals receive Advance Technology Program funds.
  The Advance Technology Program has committed $970 million and 
industry has put up more than $1 billion in cost sharing.
  Nearly half--46 percent--of the projects are led by small business 
who have also received

[[Page H7815]]

about half the Advanced Technology Program funding.
  There are more than 100 universities involved in 157 Advanced 
Technology Program projects.
  The Advanced Technology Program is an efficient and effective way to 
assist technology's transition to the marketplace.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I will just point out that 
this program was created in the 1988 trade bill. It was title X, as I 
recall, the contribution of the Committee on Science, and this program 
had been studied in the Committee on Science for several years before 
that as a way of approaching the decreasing competitiveness of American 
industry in world trade. I hope that the gentleman will keep that in 
mind.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    Public Safety Officers Benefits

       To remain available until expended, for payments authorized 
     by part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), as amended, such sums 
     as are necessary, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law 
     100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340); and $2,000,000 for the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Education Assistance Program, as authorized 
     by section 1212 of said Act.

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

       Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available 
     in this title for official reception and representation 
     expenses, a total of not to exceed $45,000 from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall 
     be available to the Attorney General for official reception 
     and representation expenses in accordance with distributions, 
     procedures, and regulations established by the Attorney 
     General.
       Sec. 102. Authorities contained in the Department of 
     Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1980 
     (Public Law 96-132, 93 Stat. 1040 (1979)), as amended, shall 
     remain in effect until the termination date of this Act or 
     until the effective date of a Department of Justice 
     Appropriation Authorization Act, whichever is earlier.
       Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated by this title 
     shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the 
     life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
     carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided,  That 
     should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null 
     and void.


                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Ms. Norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 32 offered by Ms. Norton:
       In title I, under the heading ``General Provisions--
     Department of Justice'', strike section 103.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided between the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia [Ms. Norton] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to offer the option of abortion to 
those that may be at once most in need of it and least likely to have 
access to this choice. I offer this amendment for the damned and the 
desperate.
  In the United States 60 percent of pregnancies are unintended. 
Imagine what that figure is for women in prison. I ask for an exception 
to the ban on Federal funds in order that those funds be available for 
women in prison because they do not even have the option of other poor 
women. They cannot borrow, they cannot use State or Federal funds as 
some women who live in such localities can. They are in Federal 
custody. It would be barbaric to force such women to bear children 
against their will behind bars.
  The number of women in Federal prisons has grown astronomically. 
There was 75 percent growth in the last decade. The annual growth rate 
is considerably greater than for State prisons. There is twice the 
growth rate for these women as for men. The rate of infection for HIV 
and AIDS exceeds the rate of infection for men in prison. Five percent 
of these women enter prison pregnant.
  Who are these women? We have the figures for women in State prisons. 
They are roughly comparable to Federal figures. Forty percent have been 
sexually abused. Half committed the offense under the influence of 
alcohol or drugs. More than half used drugs the month before committing 
the offense. Forty percent use drugs daily. Fifty-eight percent use 
alcohol, 20 percent every day.
  Who are the children of these inmates? They are five times as likely 
to be imprisoned as other children. Half of the children in the 
juvenile justice system have a parent in prison. The racial 
implications are awesome. Blacks, regardless of sex, are six times more 
likely to go to prison than whites. Black women have nearly the same 
chance as white men of going to prison.
  Why Federal funds? Federal funds, because Federal funds must pay for 
everything for these women, for their food, for their shelter, for 
their clothes. So if there is to be a choice, and here the choice is 
most necessary, it can only come from Federal funds.
  Providing an exception here is akin to the exception we provide for 
rape. There is no other way. These are women who, if they desire, and 
only if they desire, an abortion, should be most granted that desire, 
given their particular history.
  Moreover, there has been experience in 1993, when this body lifted 
the restrictions on abortions for women in prison, the Bureau of 
Prisons handled the matter with great sensitivity, no complaints about 
it. There was medical, religious and social counseling. There was 
written documentation that that counseling had taken place. Employees 
who had a moral or religious objection had that objection recognized.
  I recognize that there is an objection of many to abortion. We have 
recognized some exceptions, very rare, to our admonition against 
abortion. Surely if there are to be exceptions, this should be one.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for again renewing current law to prohibit 
taxpayer funding for abortion on demand in Federal prisons. And so I 
rise in very strong opposition to the Norton amendment which would 
strip this prolife provision out of the bill and thus authorize public 
funding for abortion on demand.
  It is worth noting that in 1995, the House considered this issue and 
voted 281-146 to defeat the Norton amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote 
again today.
  Mr. Chairman, it is about time that we face the fact that abortion is 
violence against children. It is hard enough that this child abuse is 
legal and that each and every day boys and girls are slaughtered by the 
abortionists, but do not force us to pay for it. Abortion methods are 
violent acts. It is violence against children. Abortion methods are not 
designed to heal, but to kill. Abortion treats pregnancy like a disease 
to be vanquished and turns babies into objects, expendable, throwaways, 
so much junk.
  It has been pointed out that many women are incarcerated because of 
drug offenses. The logic of that argument is that the children of these 
women are somehow better off dead. All I can say is that is a very 
cynical view. Since when is being a victim of drug abuse a capital 
offense? Should children be brutally killed for the crimes of their 
parents or because they might have been injured by those crimes? Of 
course not.

[[Page H7816]]

  Mr. Chairman, in our culture, abortionists sport white coats and a 
paper-thin facade of respectability, but the gut-wrenching reality is 
that abortionists dismember and poison babies for profit. They inject 
highly concentrated salt water and other poisons into the baby that 
lead to a very slow and painful death for those children. Abortionists 
routinely dismember children. They cut off their heads. They cut off 
their arms and legs. That is the reality. People can smirk and smile 
and think that that is not what happens, but that is what happens in an 
abortion.
  A few days ago, Dr. Nathanson showed a film of a suction abortion. He 
is a former abortionist who did thousands of them. He showed this film, 
a laparoscopy caught on videotape, a baby being dismembered literally 
limb by limb. That is the ugly reality that so often is sanitized by 
the rhetoric of choice. Abortion, Mr. Chairman, is violence against 
children.
  A few days ago, the world noted, Mr. Chairman, and many of us 
mourned, the passing of a woman of very deep compassion and love, 
Mother Teresa. I think many also remember that at the 1994 National 
Prayer Breakfast, Mother Teresa addressed thousands of people who were 
assembled, including President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore. 
Few could listen to Mother Teresa and not be moved to believe that in 
this small, frail, humble woman there stood a very powerful messenger 
to directly speak to a President and Nation that had lost its moral 
compass.
  Mother Teresa said, and I quote, ``Please don't kill the child. I 
want the child,'' she went on to say. ``We are fighting abortion with 
adoption, by care of the mother and adoption of the baby.'' Mother 
Teresa further stated, and I quote, ``The greatest destroyer of peace 
today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct 
killing of an innocent child.'' She then urged all Americans and 
diplomats who were assembled to more fully understand the linkage of 
abortion with other forms of violence. She said, and I quote, ``Any 
country that accepts abortion is not teaching people to love, but to 
use violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer 
of peace and love is abortion.''
  Mr. Chairman, the children of incarcerated women are of no less value 
than any other children. No child anywhere at any time, including 
unborn kids, is a throwaway. Being unwanted does not make you less 
human. It does not allow others to turn you into an object that could 
be killed with poison shots or by dismemberment of your body. The 
children of the incarcerated women are precious, and they deserve our 
love and respect; again, not dismemberment and poison shots. I urge 
Members of this body to vote ``no'' for taxpayer funding for abortion, 
to vote ``no'' on the Norton amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is about time that we stop the 
use of inflammatory language around this very personal issue. I think 
it is time that we talk about this issue at least in ways that we can 
respect everybody that is involved. I think it is time that we talk 
about what real violence is. Real violence is a woman who has to do 
time in the Federal prison who comes in drug-addicted, HIV-infected, 
pregnant, the 6 percent of them who come in that way and who say, I 
don't believe I have the right to force the kind of violence on this 
child that I am confronted with for this child. I believe it is time 
that these women have some choice.
  We talk about how much we love these children, but what happens to 
them? What happens to these children that are born unwanted, to HIV-
infected women, to drug-infected women? What happens to these children? 
We do not know what happens to them. They go out somewhere, into maybe 
foster care. These are the children that are doomed to poverty, doomed 
to the inability to have a decent life. And so that is not our choice. 
It is the choice of the woman who finds herself in this unfortunate 
predicament. I would ask for support for the Norton amendment and I 
would not be influenced by the kind of language that does not really 
speak to the issue but simply inflames on this issue.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].

                              {time}  2145

  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a part of a much larger problem, that of 
increasing numbers of women in prison and their need for medical and 
other care. All too often these women are ignored. But beyond that, Mr. 
Chairman, I think about the plight of the women I visited within our 
correctional facility at home a few months ago, and I remember my good 
friend and classmate Angela. I recall her incarceration and the many 
visits I made to her to make sure that her many medical needs were met. 
What about the increasing number of women in our prisons who do not 
have a doctor for a friend?
  It is primarily for this reason why I find the language of this bill 
before us today banning the use of Federal funds for abortion services 
for women in prison so troubling. Many female prisoners, as has been 
said, enter prison suffering from a myriad of physical and 
psychological ailments, and many are pregnant before they enter prison.
  I know, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of abortion is one that has deep 
religious and philosophical implications, and it also deeply divides 
many Americans. Notwithstanding the complexity of this issue, the fact 
remains that abortion is still a legal health care option for women in 
this country and has been for over 20 years now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Women in 
prison deserve to have access to needed health care services, and they 
deserve to have choice.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. Morella asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, a Member with great 
compassion for these poor women who are so often the victims of 
domestic violence, incest, and other problems, who need our help.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia for her outstanding work on behalf of the 
District of Columbia.
  I want to say that we love children, we love life. It is tragic that 
we have to look to this tragedy of life when we find women in prison 
who have unfortunately been in desperate situations, and we have to 
realize that 6 percent of them come in pregnant when they enter prison, 
abused and certainly suffering from physical or sexual abuse. Almost 
half of these women in the Federal penitentiary system are under the 
influence of drugs or alcohol. They have limited prenatal care, 
isolation from family and friends, and the great tragedy of having this 
infant, if to term, to be lost to them forever, but, more importantly, 
incapable of taking care of them.
  Abortion is legal. The right to life and the right to choice are 
things that are not mutually exclusive. We want to give life again to 
these women who have been battered and abused. It is unfair to deny 
them the simple medical procedure that would allow them as well the 
rights of any woman who is in this United States of America. They are 
poor; they must not be abandoned.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly to the 
gentlewoman from California, she talked about being doomed to poverty, 
and of course we all need to fight against poverty and do whatever we 
can. But it seems to me that when we doom an unborn child to a horrific 
killing of chemical poisoning or dismemberment of that child, no matter 
how that is sanitized by the pro-abortion crowd, that is

[[Page H7817]]

a very, very sleazy, terrible thing; and that is not inflammatory, that 
is the truth. Read some of the text books and the descriptions given by 
the abortionists themselves. That is just a simple fact of what 
happens.
  Let us not hide from the reality and the truth of what abortion is.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, some years ago there was a great defense 
lawyer who worked out of Chicago. His name was Charles Darrow, and he 
was known as attorney for the dammed because he represented people who 
committed serious crimes, capital crimes, Loeb and Leopold, and he was 
very successful in helping them escape the penalties of the law. If I 
were practicing law and I could pick my clients, I would choose to 
represent the unborn child of a woman who is in prison. I cannot think 
of a more humiliating, more humble circumstance, more powerless, more 
unwanted, more unthought about, more inconvenient than a poor tiny 
little child.
  We did not hear much about the child. We heard about the women, and 
God knows the woman is suffering and has had the cards dealt to her 
from the bottom of the deck, and needs and deserves and must have our 
compassion, but for God's sake, 10 seconds for the little tiny child 
made in the image and likeness for God.
  Forgive me, but I believe that little child is precious, has an 
immortal soul, has a destiny, and give that little child a chance. Love 
that little child. There ought not to be a deficit of compassion and of 
love, not a failure of imagination. Think about that little tiny 
powerless human life that cannot vote, cannot rise up in the streets, 
cannot escape, depends on the care and the concern of those around.
  Now all this amendment does is strike the part of the bill that says 
no Federal money to pay for abortions for people who are incarcerated 
in prison. That is all. It does not deny an abortion. God help us, if 
the woman wants to exterminate her unborn child, fine, the law does not 
forbid her, and the prison will escort her to private premises; and if 
it is a question of money, let Planned Parenthood, which gets millions 
of dollars, pay for the extermination, the killing, not of that little 
clump of cells, not of the products of conception, but that tiny little 
living, breathing infant that, given a chance at life, might well be a 
human being who could save our country or compose music or just be a 
decent citizen.
  Do not be so pessimistic. There are places that will take these 
children within walking distance of this building. Saint Coletta's. 
There are care and counseling centers all over this country. 
Birthright, they will take that little child.
  Mother Theresa said the great tragedy is to say there is not room for 
one more little baby.
  Think of the baby. I will think of the woman, I will pray for the 
woman, I will work to make conditions ameliorated for them. Will my 
colleagues please think of the little child for a second? A second?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. 
Norton] is recognized for the balance of the time, which is 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke eloquently of 
the unwanted powerless child who would be taken just a few blocks from 
this very Chamber, I beg to differ. Children whose parents have not 
been near prisons cannot be taken. We find no homes for them; and the 
children of incarcerated parents are more dammed than those whose 
parents have not been incarcerated. The figures tell the story of what 
happens to foster children and children in prison, and the figures do 
not lie. Now Mother Theresa might have taken them, but there are not 
other takers out here.
  The gentleman would be the first to come to the floor if Planned 
Parenthood came forward to try to pay for abortions for these children, 
to try to deny them funds to pay for abortions for these women. We are 
talking about voluntary abortions here, as always. I would prefer if 
there were a mechanism for these women to have their children adopted, 
assuming there were people who would, in fact, adopt them. There are 
not people who will adopt a homeless child on the street today, and 
everybody knows that.
  The notion of violence raised here in this context is an amazing one 
indeed. What would of course be violent is forced childbirth. That is 
what would be left here. All of the inflammatory debate about abortion 
has not reduced support for abortion in this country. It is legal for 
women in society; it should be legal and accessible for women in jail.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton] will be postponed.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title I is as follows:

       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate 
     in any way the performance of, any abortion.
       Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the 
     obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,  
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to establish and publicize a program under which 
     publicly-advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which 
     shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in 
     sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided,  That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a 
     maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal 
     approval of the President or the Attorney General and such 
     approval may not be delegated.
       Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Justice in this Act, including those derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided,  That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 108. Section 524(c)(8)(E) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``1996'' and inserting ``1997 
     and thereafter''.
       Sec. 109. (a) Section 1402(d)(2) of the Victims of Crime 
     Act of 1984, (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)), is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the next'' and 
     inserting ``The first''.
       (b) Any unobligated sums hitherto available to the judicial 
     branch pursuant to the paragraph repealed by section (a) 
     shall be deemed to be deposits into the Crime Victims Fund as 
     of the effective date hereof and may be used by the Director 
     of the Office for Victims of Crime to improve services for 
     the benefit of crime victims, including the processing and 
     tracking of criminal monetary penalties and related 
     litigation activities, in the federal criminal justice 
     system.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are their amendments to that portion of title 1?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                  Trade and Infrastructure Development

                            RELATED AGENCIES

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $21,700,000, of which $2,500,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.


[[Page H7818]]


  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hutchinson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2267), making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________