[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8003-H8023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 239 and rule XXIII, the 
Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 
2267.

                              {time}  0920


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2267) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Nussle, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
on Thursday, September 25, 1997, the bill was open for amendment from 
page 90, line 15, through page 90, line 23.
  Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       maritime security program

       For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $35,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                        operations and training

       For necessary expenses of operations and training 
     activities authorized by law, $65,000,000: Provided, That 
     reimbursements may be made to this appropriation from 
     receipts to the ``Federal Ship Financing Fund'' for 
     administrative expenses in support of that program in 
     addition to any amount heretofore appropriated.


          maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the 
     Merchant Marine Act, 1936, $35,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $1,000,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, not to exceed $3,450,000, which 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operations and Training.


           administrative provisions--maritime administration

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish utilities 
     and services and make necessary repairs in connection with 
     any lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government 
     property under control of the Maritime Administration, and 
     payments received therefor shall be credited to the 
     appropriation charged with the cost thereof: Provided, That 
     rental payments under any such lease, contract, or occupancy 
     for items other than such utilities, services, or repairs 
     shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       No obligations shall be incurred during the current fiscal 
     year from the construction fund established by the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the 
     appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in 
     any prior appropriation Act, and all receipts which otherwise 
     would be deposited to the credit of said fund shall be 
     covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

      Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of 
     America's Heritage Abroad, $250,000, as authorized by Public 
     Law 99-83, section 1303.

                       Commission on Civil Rights


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $8,740,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used to employ 
     consultants: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to employ in 
     excess of four full-time individuals under Schedule C of the 
     Excepted Service exclusive of one special assistant for each 
     Commissioner: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to reimburse 
     Commissioners for more than 75 billable days, with the 
     exception of the Chairperson who is permitted 125 billable 
     days.

                    Commission on Immigration Reform


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Immigration 
     Reform pursuant to section 141(f) of the Immigration Act of 
     1990, $496,000, to remain available until expended.

            Commission on Security and Cooperation In Europe


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304, 
     $1,090,000, to remain available until expended as authorized 
     by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.

                Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1991, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b); non-monetary awards to private citizens; and 
     not to exceed $27,500,000 for payments to State and local 
     enforcement agencies for services to the Commission pursuant 
     to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 
     sections 6 and 14 of the Age Discrimination in Employment 
     Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1991; $239,740,000: Provided, That the 
     Commission is authorized to make available for official 
     reception and representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 
     from available funds.

                   Federal Communications Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications 
     Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-02; not 
     to exceed $600,000 for land and structure; not to exceed 
     $500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to 
     buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; purchase (not to exceed 16) and hire 
     of motor vehicles; special counsel fees; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; $187,079,000, of which not to 
     exceed $300,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     1999, for research and policy studies: Provided, That 
     $152,523,000 of offsetting collections shall be assessed and 
     collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of the

[[Page H8004]]

     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 1998 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 1998 appropriation 
     estimated at $34,556,000: Provided further, That any 
     offsetting collections received in excess of $152,523,000 in 
     fiscal year 1998 shall remain available until expended, but 
     shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 1998.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission 
     as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act of 
     1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1111), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-02; 
     $13,500,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; 
     $95,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed $300,000 shall be 
     available for use to contract with a person or persons for 
     collection services in accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 
     3718, as amended: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, not to exceed $70,000,000 of 
     offsetting collections derived from fees collected for 
     premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
     Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     General Fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections 
     are received during fiscal year 1998, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 1998 appropriation from the General Fund 
     estimated at not more than $25,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That any fees received in 
     excess of $70,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 shall remain 
     available until expended, but shall not be available for 
     obligation until October 1, 1998: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds made available to the Federal Trade Commission 
     shall be available for obligation for expenses authorized by 
     section 151 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
     Improvement Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-242, 105 Stat. 2282-
     2285).

                       Legal Services Corporation


               payment to the legal services corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     as amended, $141,000,000, of which $134,575,000 is for basic 
     field programs and required independent audits; $1,125,000 is 
     for the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as 
     may be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; and $5,300,000 is for management and 
     administration.


          Administrative Provision--Legal Services Corporation

       Sec. 501. (a) Continuation of Competitive Selection 
     Process.--None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the 
     Legal Services Corporation may be used to provide financial 
     assistance to any person or entity except through a 
     competitive selection process conducted in accordance with 
     regulations promulgated by the Corporation in accordance with 
     the criteria set forth in subsections (c), (d), and (e) of 
     section 503 of Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-52 et 
     seq.).
       (b) Inapplicability of Certain Procedures.--Sections 
     1007(a)(9) and 1011 of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2996f(a)(9) and 2996j) shall not apply to the 
     provision, denial, suspension, or termination of any 
     financial assistance using funds appropriated in this Act.
       (c) Additional Procedures.--If, during any term of a grant 
     or contract awarded to a recipient by the Legal Services 
     Corporation under the competitive selection process referred 
     to in subsection (a) and applicable Corporation regulations, 
     the Corporation finds, after notice and opportunity for the 
     recipient to be heard, that the recipient has failed to 
     comply with any requirement of the Legal Services Corporation 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 2996 et seq.), this Act, or any other 
     applicable law relating to funding for the Corporation, the 
     Corporation may terminate the grant or contract and institute 
     a new competitive selection process for the area served by 
     the recipient, notwithstanding the terms of the recipient's 
     grant or contract.
       Sec. 502. (a) Continuation of Requirements and 
     Restrictions.--None of the funds appropriated in this Act to 
     the Legal Services Corporation shall be expended for any 
     purpose prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the 
     provisions of--
       (1) sections 501, 502, 505, 506, and 507 of Public Law 104-
     134 (110 Stat. 1321-51 et seq.), and all funds appropriated 
     in this Act to the Legal Services Corporation shall be 
     subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in such 
     sections, except that all references in such sections to 1995 
     and 1996 shall be deemed to refer instead to 1997 and 1998, 
     respectively; and
       (2) section 504 of Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-53 et 
     seq.), and all funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall be subject to the same terms and 
     conditions set forth in such section, except that--
       (A) subsection (c) of such section 504 shall not apply;
       (B) paragraph (3) of section 508(b) of Public Law 104-134 
     (110 Stat. 1321-58) shall apply with respect to the 
     requirements of subsection (a)(13) of such section 504, 
     except that all references in such section 508(b) to the date 
     of enactment shall be deemed to refer to April 26, 1996; and
       (C) subsection (a)(11) of such section 504 shall not be 
     construed to prohibit a recipient from using funds derived 
     from a source other than the Corporation to provide related 
     legal assistance to--
       (i) an alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme 
     cruelty in the United States by a spouse or a parent, or by a 
     member of the spouse's or parent's family residing in the 
     same household as the alien and the spouse or parent 
     consented or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty; or
       (ii) an alien whose child has been battered or subjected to 
     extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse or parent of 
     the alien (without the active participation of the alien in 
     the battery or extreme cruelty), or by a member of the 
     spouse's or parent's family residing in the same household as 
     the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced to 
     such battery or cruelty, and the alien did no actively 
     participate in such battery or cruelty.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2)(C):
       (1) The term ``battered or subjected to extreme cruelty'' 
     has the meaning given such term under regulations issued 
     pursuant to subtitle G of the Violence Against Women Act of 
     1994 (Pub. L. 103-322; 108 Stat. 1953).
       (2) The term ``related legal assistance'' means legal 
     assistance directly related to the prevention of, or 
     obtaining of relief from, the battery or cruelty described in 
     such subsection.
       Sec. 503. (a) Continuation of Audit Requirements.--The 
     requirements of section 509 of Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 
     1321-58 et seq.), other than subsection (l) of such section, 
     shall apply during fiscal year 1998.
       (b) Requirement of Annual Audit.--An annual audit of each 
     person or entity receiving financial assistance from the 
     Legal Services Corporation under this Act shall be conducted 
     during fiscal year 1998 in accordance with the requirements 
     referred to in subsection (a).
       Sec. 504. (a) Debarment.--The Legal Services Corporation 
     may debar a recipient, on a showing of good cause, from 
     receiving an additional award of financial assistance from 
     the Corporation. Any such action to debar a recipient shall 
     be instituted after the Corporation provides notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing to the recipient.
       (b) Regulations.--The Legal Services Corporation shall 
     promulgate regulations to implement this section.
       (c) Good Cause.--In this section, the term ``good cause'', 
     used with respect to debarment, includes--
       (1) prior termination of the financial assistance of the 
     recipient, under part 1640 of title 45, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or any similar corresponding regulation or 
     ruling);
       (2) prior termination in whole, under part 1606 of title 
     45, Code of Federal Regulations (or any similar corresponding 
     regulation or ruling), of the most recent financial 
     assistance received by the recipient, prior to date of the 
     debarment decision;
       (3) substantial violation by the recipient of the statutory 
     or regulatory restrictions that prohibit recipients from 
     using financial assistance made available by the Legal 
     Services Corporation or other financial assistance for 
     purposes prohibited under the Legal Services Corporation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2996 et seq.) or for involvement in any activity 
     prohibited by, or inconsistent with, section 504 of Public 
     Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-53 et seq.), section 502(a)(2) of 
     Public Law 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009-59 et seq.), or section 
     502(a)(2) of this Act;
       (4) knowing entry by the recipient into a subgrant, 
     subcontract, or other agreement with an entity that had been 
     debarred by the Corporation; or
       (5) the filing of a lawsuit by the recipient, on behalf of 
     the recipient, as part of any program receiving any Federal 
     funds, naming the Corporation, or any agency or employee of a 
     Federal, State, or local government, as a defendant.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 104, line 2, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

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


[[Page H8005]]


       On page 104, after line 2, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 505. (a) Not later than January 1, 1998, the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall implement a system of case 
     information disclosure which shall apply to all basic field 
     programs which receive funds from the Legal Services 
     Corporation from funds appropriated in this Act.
       (b) Any basic field program which receives Federal funds 
     from the Legal Services Corporation from funds appropriated 
     in this Act must disclose to the public in written form, upon 
     request, and to the Legal Services Corporation in semiannual 
     reports, the following information about each case filed by 
     its attorneys in any court:
       (1) The name and full address of each party to the legal 
     action unless such information is protected by an order or 
     rule of a court or by State or Federal law or revealing such 
     information would put the client of the recipient of such 
     Federal funds at risk of physical harm.
       (2) The cause of action in the case.
       (3) The name and address of the court in which the case was 
     filed and the case number assigned to the legal action.
       (c) The case information disclosed in semi-annual reports 
     to the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to 
     disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], and a Member opposed, each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to require programs 
funded by the Legal Services Corporation to disclose to the public and 
the LSC the most basic information about litigation in which LSC 
grantees are involved. I thought we had agreement on this. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], who is one of the proponents of 
the Legal Services Corporations, and I had some lengthy discussions 
about this, and I thought the amendment had been agreed to, but the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], I understand, has some 
opposition, so we will probably have to get into a somewhat lengthy 
debate.
  The information that would be disclosed would be the name and the 
address of each party, the legal action, the cause of action, the name 
and address of the court in which the case is filed, and the case 
number assigned to the legal action. In those instances where an 
address and name are not disclosed for reasons of security, such as in 
the case of a battered wife or where children are abused, that 
information would not be disclosed because it is not currently 
disclosed, even though it is in the records in the courts.
  This basic information is not privileged, and as I said before, such 
information is on file currently in court records. Nothing disclosed 
would be in violation of the attorney-client privilege, and it is 
important to note that my amendment does not disclose any information 
that is not already public information. My amendment simply makes 
accessible what is highly unaccessible right now.
  Case disclosure will not be burdensome. According to the LSC budget 
request for fiscal year 1998, only 8 percent of the Legal Services 
caseload is litigated, requiring public disclosure. Basic information 
about the case being litigated would not constitute a burden on the 
resources of local programs.
  Now, here is why the amendment is needed, and I hope all of my 
colleagues are paying attention. Public disclosure of Government-funded 
activities is essential for honest, open Government. Other Government 
programs are subject to a variety of public disclosure requirements; 
for example, the Federal Election Commission. While the LSC is subject 
to the Freedom of Information Act and other disclosure requirements, it 
is approximately 280 grantees that expend 97 percent of the LSC budget 
are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Given the large 
number of controversial and abusive cases that have been associated 
with the LSC over the past several years, in violation of congressional 
mandates, disclosure of cases would let the sun shine on the everyday 
work of the LSC.
  The LSC was funded at $283 million in 1997 over the objections of 
many of us. What kind of assurances does Congress get that the LSC is 
following guidelines and restrictions?

                              {time}  0930

  The answer is clearly none. The American people want to know what 
their taxpayers' dollars are being spent on. As I said before, we are 
going to protect those who would be in jeopardy, such as battered 
children or wives.
  The LSC has not reformed itself and continues to disregard 
congressional intent. So I think this is a good amendment. I thought we 
had bipartisan support for it. Evidently we do have some objections.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] 
opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at best this amendment is unnecessary. I am advised by 
the Legal Services Corporation that it is extremely burdensome and 
costly. Some of the privacy concerns that many had with regard to this 
amendment originally, some had been addressed by the gentleman, and I 
would be pleased to look at those as the process moves forward, and 
particularly in conference.
  But at this point, Mr. Chairman, the changes in the reporting system 
would be costly. The amendment does not address any identified problem, 
really, nor does it serve any specific purpose. It costs a considerable 
amount. We appreciate his addressing some of the other concerns, but 
just because of the unnecessariness, we have a tight budget, and this 
has put additional administrative burdens, something that the gentleman 
has fought against for many years, putting paperwork burdens, 
administrative burdens on people. That is what this really does, 
representing a considerable additional cost. On that basis, Mr. 
Chairman, I have to at this point oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. It is 
my understanding that the amendment requires disclosure only of 
information that is already a matter of public record under court rules 
or applicable Federal or State law. I believe the amendment will merely 
facilitate appropriate oversight of federally funded LSC grantees. In 
fact, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this matter to our attention, 
and I am glad to support the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am still just confounded by what practical difference 
the gentleman believes his amendment will make.
  If we are talking about oversight, we already have a requirement and 
generally administrative practice on the part of Legal Services Corp. 
grantees to track the kinds of cases that they are involved in. The 
gentleman's amendment takes that a step further. That gives names and 
addresses of plaintiffs and defendants, as well as other case file 
information which is public information, if we want to go to the court 
and dig it out, as the gentleman knows.
  But to require the expenditure of additional time and resources to an 
already strapped program in order to pull this information together, 
which will add nothing to our oversight capabilities, but will make 
susceptible to invasions of privacy inappropriate efforts by any number 
of likely people who want to exploit this kind of address list, I 
really do not understand what the gentleman believes he is going to 
accomplish by this, other than further burdening the people that are 
trying to provide legal services.
  The gentleman signed, along with several of his colleagues, a ``Dear 
Colleague'' a few days ago laying out three

[[Page H8006]]

particularly, by his lights, I gather, egregious cases. The facts in 
all of those cases I think have been substantially rebutted by the 
realities that were involved and that necessitated Legal Services' 
intervention.
  I would ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], what will we 
learn from this that we do not already know that will make a difference 
in appropriate oversight?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman, 
and would ask him to repeat his question, if he would.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the question is, What will we learn if 
this amendment becomes law that we do not already know, that will make 
a real difference in our ability to do oversight of the Legal Services 
Corp.?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The situation right now is if we want 
information, we have two choices. We can go through all the court 
records, as the gentleman just mentioned, which is a very cumbersome 
task, or we can go to the Federal LSC offices. Only 8 percent of the 
cases are really divulged by the LSC. That means 92 percent are not. 
They already have those records at the local LSC office. We put 
protections in there for the battered wives and so forth.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has not responded to my 
inquiry. We already have information at each LSC grantee of the types 
of cases they have done. The gentleman's amendment adds names, 
addresses, case numbers to that.
  What additional value is there in this information that is not 
already available to either Members of Congress or our staff or LSC 
corporate auditors, that justifies the additional significant expense 
and computer programming and administrative costs that will be imposed?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, I do not think there will be any 
additional expenses. The records are already there.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will answer the gentleman's question, but he 
obviously does not want to hear.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I do want to hear.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment is to bring more 
accountability, and I stress that word, accountability, to the Members 
of Congress, and therefore to the American people, of the workings of 
the Legal Services entities in the various communities across the 
Nation.
  In the last 20 years we have heard anecdote after anecdote about the 
kinds of abuses that have been foisted upon the American public by the 
Legal Services Corp. and entities in the local communities.
  Now, the proponents always say, they are just anecdotes. If we pile 
up the anecdotes we have an entire encyclopedia. Therefore, they become 
worrisome and repetitive across the Nation.
  One egregious example that should have the American people sit up and 
take notice is the following. If legal services was set up to help low-
income poor people, as it was, I support that, and I favor that. Every 
move that I have made in Congress as chairman of the subcommittee in 
charge of this has been to preserve legal services for the poor.
  If that be the case, then understand this example. We have housing 
authorities across the Nation who are aided and abetted in their work 
for their tenants by tenants' associations, tenants' groups. Those are 
tenants' groups made up of low-income resident people of the low-income 
housing areas.
  When they get together and complain that legal services is thwarting 
their tenants' objectives in trying to evict drug dealers, these are 
low-income people who are victims of the legal services intervention to 
try to protect a drug dealer tenant against a majority of tenants who 
are low-income poor people, who dread the presence of a drug dealer.
  That means to me that that kind of anecdote, which cannot be 
dismissed because it is happening across the Nation, is the kind of 
case that can be prevented if we have full accountability. If we would 
know, as Members of Congress, at the outset that a legal services 
entity is committing itself to the representation of a drug dealer 
tenant against low-income people, against poor people, against low-
income tenants who need legal services to preserve their housing area 
free from drug dealers, then how can anyone doubt that we need more 
accountability?
  The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] just a while ago said 
it is unnecessary to have this, meaning that he favors accountability, 
and he believes that accountability in its present status is enough.
  I say that if we pass the gentleman's amendment as it stands now on 
the floor, all we do is crystalize what the gentleman from West 
Virginia says already exists, and furthermore, allows reporting to the 
Members of Congress of what goes on on a daily basis in the legal 
services community.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, whatever the merits of the argument the 
gentleman has just made, the Burton amendment will not address them. It 
has nothing to do with the points the gentleman made.
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes, it does. It brings the Congress into full 
acknowledgment of what is happening in the local communities. If there 
is additional reporting required by the Burton amendment, which in fact 
there is additional reporting, then we are all the better for it, and 
the abuses that have been piling up for 20 years could begin to 
dwindle, at least if the present status of legal services is to be 
continued.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's 
representations about my position here, this may be a bit of role 
reversal, but we are arguing for less paperwork and less administrative 
responsibility here because this information is already available, 
virtually. So the gentleman is correct, except we are opposing the 
amendment simply on the basis that it is unnecessary. It does not do 
anything, so why do this?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, if I could continue the conversation with 
the sponsor of the amendment, I was not trying to be difficult. I just 
ran out of time before.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the gentleman's amendment, in 
addition to records that are already required to be kept by a legal 
services grantee, the gentleman's amendment would require disclosure of 
the name and address of each party to a legal action. Is that correct?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, those are already records kept 
by the local LSC, but not disclosed unless you go through the national 
LSC.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Then the cause of action, that is information collected 
as a matter of course by legal services grantees now, is that not 
correct?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. The name and address of the court in which the case is 
filed, is that part of the gentleman's amendment?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But it is all kept now by the local LSC. We 
are not contesting what the gentleman is saying.
  Mr. SKAGGS. What more will we be able to do, having all of this 
additional information collated with new computer programs and so 
forth, that we cannot now do?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The bottom line is this. Many of us feel like 
we are spending $283 million and that is excessive. We want to help the 
indigent, everybody does, but we believe there should be more 
accountability. Even though Congress passed, a couple of

[[Page H8007]]

years ago, some rules regarding LSC, in the last 2 years there have 
been violations of those rules. All we want to do is make sure there is 
accountability.
  The bottom line is this, that those records are there. If we could 
get them from the local LSC instead of going through the paperwork at 
the national level, we think it would be easier to make sure there is 
accountability and there are no abuses. We are not asking for anything 
but more accountability. It is just that simple. The records are there. 
I do not think it is going to cost anymore than it does already.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, at least the legal 
services grantee in metropolitan Denver, realizing that they have not 
had a whole lot of time to figure out what this would cost, estimates 
it is probably a $20,000 a year proposition to deal with all of the 
additional data management and computer changes that are involved.
  Given, as the gentleman's comments have indicated, this information 
is already available, not necessarily pulled together in just the 
fashion that his amendment would require, it is somewhat bewildering to 
figure out why we should be spending this additional money.
  Mr. Chairman, I assume the real concern that we are trying to address 
here is that legal services are getting into kinds of cases that are 
proscribed under the restrictions that are now in law.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Yes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. That information is now readily available. It does not 
require names and addresses. That does not add anything to 
understanding the kinds of cases of either plaintiffs or defendants. It 
does not require names of courts attached to those kinds of cases. We 
already know that. It can be gotten at without the additional burdens 
that gentleman's amendment would impose on these strapped operations.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the 
discussion.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I do want to prolong it, because we are getting 
somewhere.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This information, if you really want to get 
it, you can go to the court records, a cumbersome thing, and it takes a 
lot of time to dig through records that you do not want to go through, 
or you can go to the national LSC and get it. What I am saying is they 
can get it from the local LSC.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reclaiming my time, the local operation already keeps 
records by the kinds of cases they are litigating. If that is the 
gentleman's concern, that they are getting into kinds of cases that 
they should not, that information exists.
  What additional benefit is it in the gentleman's mind to note names 
and addresses of plaintiffs and defendants and the address of the 
court? How can that make any difference in our understanding of the 
kinds of cases that are being litigated?

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that more 
detailed information gives us more of an oversight of the actual 
operation of the local LSC that may be in violation of the current 
statutes that we pass here in the Congress, and we know those exist.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if we have a class 
action being brought and that record exists at the local office, what 
difference does it make to our oversight needs in knowing the names of 
all the defendants and plaintiffs collected in a different manner than 
is now the case or where the court happens to be? We have what we need 
if we know they are doing a kind of case that is not permitted, do we 
not?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The only way we can get the information is to 
dig through court records or go to the national LSC, and we say we want 
to go to the local LSC.
  Now, actually, we are asking for more information than what the 
gentleman wants us to have, but we think that is part of the policing 
effort that is necessary to make sure they are accountable.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reclaiming my time, I am not complaining about the 
information we need to do oversight. That already exists at the local 
level.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We cannot get it at the local level unless we 
go through the local LSC.
  Mr. SKAGGS. If all the gentleman is concerned about is that they are 
getting into the kinds of cases the gentleman does not like and that 
are proscribed, why do we not limit the gentleman's amendment to making 
sure they have available at the local level an accounting for the kinds 
of lawsuits being brought, to see whether any of those violate the 
restrictions?
  Why does the gentleman need this other information that will be 
costly and burdensome for the local legal services operations to put 
together?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We want to make sure. We want to make sure we 
are covering the waterfront so that there is no problem and they are 
not covering up something.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reclaiming my time, I think it is transparent. The only 
reason to go through these extra steps is to be a gratuitous burden on 
the operation that the gentleman thinks we should not be doing at all.
  I think his position is self-evident, although we are trying to dance 
around other rationales for putting this costly additional burden on 
these operations, which I think is very regrettable. I hope my 
colleagues will vote ``no.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me just say they are not going to be overburdened. The 
information is already in their files. This makes it easier to police 
it, though, because the people who want to police LSC do not have to go 
through the machinations of going to Washington, DC to get the 
information. They can get it through the local LSC office.
  The fact of the matter is the local LSC offices do not really want to 
give that information out. They have it. It will not be an additional 
burden. I do not understand the argument.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. LoBiondo].
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the amendment by 
my colleague from Indiana; [Mr. Burton].
  I believe everyone should have access to legal services, but in the 
case of Legal Services Corp., it is no longer just defending 
individuals, it is bullying employers, specifically farmers. The Legal 
Services Corp. is not just representing but it is, instead, prosecuting 
and twisting the laws originally intended to shield those who need 
protection, to badger legitimate and honest small business people.
  In southern New Jersey we have a thriving agricultural industry, and 
it is common between employers and employees at times in any arena. And 
occasionally there is litigation between the farmers and workers over 
various employment issues. The Legal Services Corp. is there to provide 
representation for the workers who are often unable financially to 
secure legal representation on their own.
  However, the complaint I frequently hear from the farmers in my 
district and from my State is that the Legal Services Corp. attorneys 
pursue such litigation recklessly, with questionable tactics and 
motives; again, with questionable tactics and motives.
  Let me share two examples that occurred in my district. A farmer from 
Salem County, NJ, settled a multiple plaintiff claim for $500 per 
worker, the total amount to be put in escrow and distributed by the 
Legal Services Corp. in Puerto Rico where the plaintiffs lived.
  LSC first reported to the farmer there was a $500 surplus which he 
would get back. Just earlier this year, however, LSC wrote informing 
him that a man had walked in claiming to have worked for the farmer and 
was entitled to the $500, just upon that claim of walking in. LSC let 
the farmer know that he could respond via his attorney within 20 days 
or the $500 would be given to the plaintiff.
  This is insanity. Despite this, the farmer had no record of the 
claimant ever working for him. It would have cost him more than $500 
just to respond through his attorney, so he was forced to allow the 
distribution and forego the surplus.
  Another farmer from Atlanta County, NJ, called the local police to 
escort a disruptive worker with a weapon off

[[Page H8008]]

his property. LSC got involved and 2 years later their lawyers filed a 
claim against the farmer for eviction. This farmer took it to the U.S. 
Department of Labor arbitration and won. Legal Services Corp. refused 
to appear at the arbitration. They refused to appear at the arbitration 
but, instead, pursued a case in court against the farmer and the city.
  The case against the farmer is still going on and LSC refuses to 
settle for less than $11,000. Think about that. After the police escort 
someone from his home who has threatened him with an ice pick he got 
sued for eviction.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, these are the kinds of abuses that 
continuously take place. I strongly support the gentleman's amendment 
because we have to start to rectify these many problems that are going 
after by legal services who are targeting farmers of moderate means, 
farmers of moderate means who are forced into settlements that do not 
make any sense. This is wrong. It needs to be corrected.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but observing in response to 
the prior gentleman's points that they had nothing to do with the 
substance of the amendment before the House.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by 
my colleague from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of 
the Burton amendment, which I believe would create an additional level 
of assurance that legal services programs are working effectively and 
responsively.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for his 
willingness to work with me to address some of my concerns regarding 
the language of his original amendment. While we may differ in our 
views on the need to continue funding for legal services programs, I 
know we share the same interest in seeing that any federally funded 
program is efficient, effective, and operates in the sunshine of public 
scrutiny.
  Earlier, during the consideration of this bill, we debated on the 
adequate funding level for low income legal services. I was pleased the 
House exercised its will to support by a broad margin a higher funding 
level than was included in the committee mark. During debate, many 
Members expressed concerns about the activities of several legal aid 
agencies around the country. I do not take these concerns lightly, 
however the charges levied I believe in most, if not all cases, are 
exaggerated beyond the issue of whether or not they are appropriate in 
the new environment of the reformed Legal Services Corp.
  We must be certain the information provided from this legislation is 
used responsibly and not to harass the agencies or the clients. I 
appeal to those who are pressing this amendment and ask that this 
information not be used to further inflame the rhetoric fostered by 
outside groups, but that it be used within the proper congressional 
oversight that should be conducted over every taxpayer's dollar.
  I do believe that public exposure can be positive, and I will support 
the amendment. I continue to have minor concerns about the details and 
process included in the amendment, however I am hopeful the gentleman 
from Indiana will give further consideration to these concerns and that 
we can work them out in conference committee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Nussle]. The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments at this point 
in the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Marine Mammal Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, as amended, 
     $1,000,000.

                   Securities and Exchange Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $283,000,000, of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used 
     toward funding a permanent secretariat for the International 
     Organization of Securities Commissions, and of which not to 
     exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for 
     consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with 
     foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members 
     of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff 
     to exchange views concerning developments relating to 
     securities matters, development and implementation of 
     cooperation agreements concerning securities matters and 
     provision of technical assistance for the development of 
     foreign securities markets, such expenses to include 
     necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the 
     expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in 
     attendance at such consultations and meetings including (1) 
     such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such 
     attendance, (2) any travel and transportation to or from such 
     meetings, and (3) any other related lodging or subsistance: 
     Provided, That fees and charges authorized by sections 
     6(b)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(4)) 
     and 31(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78ee(d)) shall be credited to this account as offsetting 
     collections: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $249,523,000 of such offsetting collections shall be 
     available until expended for necessary expenses of this 
     account: Provided further, That the total amount appropriated 
     for fiscal year 1998 under this heading shall be reduced as 
     all such offsetting fees are deposited to this appropriation 
     so as to result in a final total fiscal year 1998 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $33,477,000: Provided further, That any such fees 
     collected in excess of $249,523,000 shall remain available 
     until expended but shall not be available for obligation 
     until October 1, 1998.

                     Small Business Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law 
     103-403, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed 
     $3,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $235,047,000: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized 
     to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by 
     the Administration, and certain loan servicing activities: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, 
     revenues received from all such activities shall be credited 
     to this account, to be available for carrying out these 
     purposes without further appropriations: Provided further, 
     That $75,500,000 shall be available to fund grants for 
     performance in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 as 
     authorized by section 21 of the Small Business Act, as 
     amended.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11, as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), $9,490,000.


                     business loans program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $187,100,000, as 
     authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which $45,000,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 1999: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That during fiscal year 1998, 
     commitments to guarantee loans under section 503 of the Small 
     Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed 
     the amount of financings authorized under section 20(n)(2)(B) 
     of the Small Business Act, as amended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $94,000,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses.


                     disaster loans program account

       For the cost of disaster loans and associated 
     administrative expenses, $199,100,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such costs for direct loans, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That of the amounts available under 
     this heading, $500,000 shall be transferred to and merged 
     with appropriations for the Office of Inspector General of 
     the Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of 
     disaster loans and the disaster loan program.


                 surety bond guarantees revolving fund

       For additional capital for the ``Surety Bond Guarantees 
     Revolving Fund'', authorized by the Small Business Investment 
     Act,

[[Page H8009]]

     as amended, $3,500,000, to remain available without fiscal 
     year limitation as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note.


        administrative provision--small business administration

       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the Small Business 
     Administration in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

                        State Justice Institute


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as 
     authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act 
     of 1992 (Public Law 102-572 (106 Stat. 4515-4516)), 
     $3,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application 
     of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be 
     held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     each provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
       Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or 
     provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 1998, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds which (1) creates new programs; (2) 
     eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases 
     funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates 
     an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or 
     activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions, 
     or activities presently performed by Federal employees; 
     unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified fifteen days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided 
     under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by 
     this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 1998, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that (1) 
     augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a 
     change in existing programs, activities, or projects as 
     approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations Committees of 
     both Houses of Congress are notified fifteen days in advance 
     of such reprogramming of funds.
       Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency 
     repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels 
     for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 
     shipyards located outside of the United States.
       Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines 
     of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering 
     harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the 
     Federal entity or official to which such funds are made 
     available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect 
     from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on 
     October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
       Sec. 609. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay for 
     any cost incurred for (1) opening or operating any United 
     States diplomatic or consular post in the Socialist Republic 
     of Vietnam that was not operating on July 11, 1995; (2) 
     expanding any United States diplomatic or consular post in 
     the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that was operating on July 
     11, 1995; or (3) increasing the total number of personnel 
     assigned to United States diplomatic or consular posts in the 
     Socialist Republic of Vietnam above the levels existing on 
     July 11, 1995, unless the President certifies within 60 days, 
     based upon all information available to the United States 
     Government that the Government of the Socialist Republic of 
     Vietnam is cooperating in full faith with the United States 
     in the following four areas:
       (1) Resolving discrepancy cases, live sightings and field 
     activities.
        (2) Recovering and repatriating American remains.
       (3) Accelerating efforts to provide documents that will 
     help lead to fullest possible accounting of POW/MIA's.
       (4) Providing further assistance in implementing trilateral 
     investigations with Laos.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Doggett

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Doggett:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign 
     country of restrictions on the marketing of such products.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Mollohan as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                         Offered by Mr. Doggett

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by Mr. Doggett: 
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       Sec.  . None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign 
     country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or 
     tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not 
     applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the 
     same type.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, September 25, 1997, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] 
and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes on both amendments.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the substitute amendment is acceptable.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] may control the 15 minutes in opposition.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1000


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. The substitute amendment is before us as having been 
adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. DOGGETT. And, Mr. Chairman, I will have 15 minutes in support of 
the substitute amendment. And who will have 15 minutes in opposition to 
that amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there a Member opposed to that 
amendment?
  Without objection, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] will 
control the 15 minutes in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns the health of our children, the

[[Page H8010]]

children of the entire world. The dangers of nicotine addiction to our 
children are now increasingly known. Three thousand young Americans 
each day become caught up in the nicotine habit, our leading cause of 
preventable death in America.
  But these dangers do not stop at our country's shores. With 
increasing pressure to stop hooking kids here at home on nicotine, the 
big tobacco companies are spreading out around the globe to hook other 
people's kids. To make matters worse, American tax dollars, our tax 
dollars, have been used to promote addicting our people's children to 
the nicotine drug. This amendment would put a stop to that.
  Since 1990, while Phillip Morris sales have grown by only 4.7 percent 
here in the United States, they have grown by 80 percent abroad. 
Smoking causes about 3 million deaths each year around the world. And 
it is estimated that in another couple of decades, the number will rise 
to 10 million, with 70 percent of all deaths from smoking coming into 
developing countries that are the newest targets of big tobacco.
  Unfortunately, the U.S. Government and the U.S. taxpayer has been 
complicit in this export of death. Government employees in the Office 
of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Commerce and State 
Departments, economic and commercial counselors around the globe have 
assisted American tobacco companies overseas to break down barriers, 
and the result has been more kids around the globe are smoking.
  One of the examples comes from our Embassy in Thailand, where instead 
of promoting health, our taxpayer dollars were used to try to 
discourage health restrictions. This amendment would put a stop to that 
and would ensure that America provides leadership in protecting 
children around the world instead of exposing them to disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Ms. DeGette], one of the coauthors of this amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, tobacco does not discriminate. Tobacco 
kills people, young and old, black and white, American and Thai alike. 
Yet it seems that our Government discriminates when it comes to 
tobacco.
  At home, the U.S. Government spends millions of dollars every year on 
tobacco prevention programs and is currently engaged in the most 
aggressive effort to date to curb youth smoking in America. But abroad 
in Asia, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the U.S. 
Government works hand in hand with tobacco companies to promote its 
product and increase its use in the overseas marketplace. What does 
this say about how our Government values human life? Is a life in 
downtown Washington more precious than a life in Bangkok? Tobacco does 
not discriminate, and neither should we.
  There is a real difference between a company voicing legitimate 
international trade concerns and the tobacco industry's use of the 
Federal Government as a school yard bully to force foreign governments 
to subject their young to a barrage of cigarette marketing. It is a 
black eye for American diplomacy.
  There is no doubt the entry of American tobacco overseas has 
dramatically increased consumption worldwide. In Taiwan, smoking rates 
of high school students jumped from 22 to 32 percent in the 2 years 
after American cigarettes were introduced. In Korea, the rate for male 
teens grew from 18 to 30 percent in just 1 year. In Japan, 26 percent 
of high school senior girls were smoking in 1990 after U.S. cigarettes 
were introduced.
  Let us face it, tobacco companies do not need an extra boost from our 
Government to thrive overseas. That is why since 1993 we have banned 
such activity by the Agriculture Department by prohibiting the agency 
from promoting tobacco through the market access program.
  As Congress embarks on the historic negotiations to reduce smoking at 
home, it would be inhumane for us to continue supporting this smoking 
abroad.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], who has been one of the leaders in trying to 
protect other children from tobacco.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
amendment. This is just common sense. Tobacco kills. U.S. taxpayer 
dollars should not be used to help the tobacco industry market this 
deadly product.
  This is not a car. It is not a computer. It is not some piece of 
technology which is going to help to improve the quality of life. It is 
a product that, in fact, kills people. We have seen the dangers of 
smoking right here at home. We have spent billions of dollars on health 
care for people with tobacco-related diseases.
  We should not be in the business to allow the tobacco industry to 
turn its gaze outward to the untapped markets across the world. Now 
that their market shares are beginning to decline in the United States, 
our Government has no business using taxpayer dollars to help the 
tobacco industry export this deadly product.
  The Department of Agriculture is already barred from promoting 
tobacco through the market access program. This amendment would simply 
make Federal policy consistent across the Departments.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Lampson].
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, if we respect the way tobacco products are 
marketed in this Nation because we are concerned about the documented 
health risks, how can we in good conscience use taxpayer funds to help 
tobacco companies market their products overseas in nations where no 
restrictions are placed on their tactics which overwhelmingly target 
children? It is indefensible.
  As this Nation works to finalize a settlement that will force tobacco 
companies to reimburse States and individuals for the illnesses caused 
by many of their products, we must not be aiding the efforts to export 
those illnesses overseas. In fact, a New York Times editorial recently 
pointed out American tobacco companies have agreed to proposed domestic 
settlement in part because it does not touch them overseas where 
profits are soaring and they can boldly target teenagers without fear 
of lawsuit or powerful critics.
  In this Nation nearly 30 years of antismoking efforts, because of it 
and despite it, American children still recognize Joe Camel as much as 
they recognize Mickey Mouse. In Hong Kong, empty packs of American 
cigarettes can be redeemed for tickets to movies and discos and 
concerts. In the mid-1980's our own U.S. Trade Representative demanded 
and won the right for American tobacco companies to advertise in Korea 
and Taiwan. No wonder tobacco consumption is growing at the fastest 
rate in the world in Asia.
  I believe this Nation should be exporting antismoking efforts, but at 
the very least, we should stop aiding the efforts of the tobacco 
companies overseas. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, are there no speakers in opposition? I 
have some other speakers. I wanted to be sure I was not going to be 
faced with other speakers at the end.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, no, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett] is going to have a clear field here.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], who has done as much as anyone in this 
Congress to deal with the plague of this preventable disease caused by 
tobacco.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Doggett-
Meehan-Hansen-DeGette amendment.
  Simply put, we can no longer continue to promote and facilitate the 
overseas sale of preventable death. In 1995 alone, Mr. Chairman, 
tobacco products killed 3 million people worldwide. According to the 
World Health Organization, 500 million people alive today will die due 
to smoking-related illness. It is hypocritical at best and immoral at 
worst for us to continue on our present course.
  At a time when we are working to improve the health of our citizens, 
it should not be the policy of the U.S. Government to promote the sale 
and marketing of death and disease abroad. This amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, is about our Government's complicity in big tobacco's export 
on an epidemic scale.

[[Page H8011]]

  Here in the United States, smoking rates among adults have finally 
begun to decline. In response to a shrinking domestic market, the 
American tobacco companies have turned their attention to the 
independent national market, particularly developing nations in Asia, 
Latin America and Eastern Europe. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, international 
sales of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds have already quadrupled in the 
last 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of this amendment do not mention the fact 
that American tobacco companies are unleashing an unprecedented 
advertising and marketing campaign on unsophisticated and vulnerable 
consumers all across the world. Further, they conveniently forget to 
mention that American tobacco companies have targeted women, the vast 
majority of whom had not previously smoked, by linking the women's 
movement with the smoking of cigarettes.
  It is abundantly clear that the American tobacco companies are 
looking overseas for future profits. With this amendment, we must 
decide whether or not we, as a nation, will facilitate big tobacco's 
overseas campaign. Currently we are willing accomplices to the 
worldwide addition of children to tobacco products. Thus, we had have 
contributed to these untimely deaths.
  How can we on the one hand seek to protect our children from the 
ravages of nicotine addiction while promoting the activities of tobacco 
companies abroad? This is a good amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Doggett 
amendment. We should not use any Federal funds to support the promotion 
and export of tobacco overseas. Tobacco kills. It is a known killer. It 
is toxic and addictive. Tobacco kills more than 1,000 Americans every 
day.
  Most people begin smoking when they are teenagers. Every day 3,000 
young people begin smoking. We must put an end to this effort. This is 
an effort we support worldwide. We must send that same message around 
the world that tobacco kills. We should not, we must not, we cannot 
support smoking in other countries around the world.
  We must not allow public funds to promote smoking in other countries. 
Why should we export our poison? Why should we send our poison to 
poorer, sicker, less developed countries? We all live on this planet 
together, Mr. Chairman. We must be concerned not just about our 
children becoming addicted, we must also be concerned about children 
around the world, rich or poor, black, white, yellow, or brown. They 
all are our children.
  We are talking about the lives of innocent children. Mr. Chairman, we 
have people that are trying to sell poison to our neighbors' children. 
They are using their money and their ads and their glamour to poison 
our Nation's and neighbors' children. We have a moral responsibility 
not to support this effort. We have a moral duty to protect our 
neighbors' children just as we protect our own children. We must say no 
to tobacco both here in our country and around the world.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Luther], one of the leaders in the effort to deal with 
the young people and not having them become addicted to nicotine.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
because America's tobacco companies are continuing to profit from 
addicting the world's children to tobacco.
  This amendment will force the U.S. Government to cease the 
unconscionable practice of assisting these companies in promoting 
tobacco use abroad. We now have extensive research showing that 
billboards and advertisements in magazines increase smoking among 
youth.
  The fact that children are being used as advertising targets severely 
detracts from their ability to make sound judgments about the 
devastating health consequences of smoking. Let us put emotion aside 
and simply consider the facts.
  In foreign country after foreign country, smoking rates among young 
people have skyrocketed after American cigarettes were introduced. This 
is atrocious, and the U.S. Government is in part responsible. We must 
no longer be part of this tragedy.
  I urge my fellow House Members to support this amendment, discourage 
tobacco use around the world, and send the message that America will 
not tolerate this kind of assault on the world's children.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this has been a bipartisan effort. The 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], one of the coauthors, is not here 
today to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella], my distinguished Republican colleague and another leader in 
this effort.
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to try to really condense and simply say that I 
think it is a very important amendment, and I hope that my colleagues 
will all support it. Tobacco use continues to be a major health problem 
in our country. We all know that. It is responsible for one out of five 
illnesses, according to the Centers for Disease Control. We know that 
those illnesses coming from tobacco cost Medicare more than $10 billion 
a year, Medicaid more than $5 billion.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why we are subsidizing the 
promotion of tobacco products in the first place. The tobacco industry 
makes large profits on their products, and in fact 68 cents of every 
dollar that is spent by consumers on tobacco products goes to 
manufacturers and distributors. Price-Waterhouse conducted a study that 
concluded that the tobacco industry generates about 800,000 jobs. 
However, more than 3 million people worldwide die each year from 
diseases related to tobacco use. That means that four people must die 
each year to create one job.

  The amendment before us is merely an extension of legislative actions 
taken by past Congresses. In every agriculture appropriations bill 
since 1993, Congress has approved provisions to prohibit the 
Agriculture Department from promoting the sale or export of tobacco 
products overseas. This amendment extends the prohibition to the 
Departments of Commerce, State, and the U.S. Trade Representative.
  We should not be using taxpayer funds to promote the sale or export 
of cigarettes. This is a product that addicts children and kills one-
half of its long-term users. The American Heart Association emphasizes 
that ``more people die each year in the United States from smoking than 
from AIDS, alcohol, drug use, homicide, car accidents, and fires 
combined. Tobacco use accounts for more than $68 billion in health care 
costs and lost productivity each year.
  I think it is time for the Federal Government to get out of the 
tobacco business. I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to 
move one step more towards accomplishing that goal.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 3-\3/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, my thanks to all of my colleagues who have 
joined on what I believe is an important amendment. This will be the 
first time that this Congress, particularly in view of all of the 
discussion of the tobacco settlement, recognizes and goes on record 
that our responsibilities as a world leader and as a moral leader in 
this world do not stop at the shores of this Nation.
  Yes, we are concerned that 3,000 young Americans become addicts to 
tobacco each day; yes, we are concerned that this is the leading cause 
of preventable death in this country; yes, we are concerned when 
tobacco companies come through this Congress and sneak in a $50 billion 
tax credit for themselves. But our concern does not go just to our 
children; it goes to the children of the world. And we know that if a 
tobacco settlement is funded by simply addicting other children we have 
forfeited our claim to responsibility in this world and our claim to 
any moral leadership in this world.
  And so today, Mr. Chairman, I believe this House will go on record as 
saying no longer will we use the tax dollars of American taxpayers to 
promote the sale of tobacco abroad, and no longer will we ask the U.S. 
Trade Representative, as happened in Korea, to go in and knock down 
restrictions on

[[Page H8012]]

advertising directed at young Koreans, directed at the children of 
Korea so that they can become addicted to nicotine, and say that we did 
it because it was a trade regulation that was limiting new entrants, 
American tobacco companies, into this foreign market. We go on record 
against that.
  There is an amendment that has been added by my colleague from West 
Virginia, and it is a narrow amendment indeed. It says essentially that 
if some country were to say we do not want West Virginia tobacco but we 
will take the tobacco from the rest of the world, that that would be a 
very narrow limited basis for the Trade Representative to go in and see 
that that kind of arbitrary discrimination did not occur. But not with 
reference to health and safety regulations, not with regard to the 
ingredients in tobacco, as our embassy in Thailand sought to do to 
limit the health efforts of the Thai Government; no, what we will be 
doing today is responding to the tobacco control advocates from 19 
countries around the world who wrote this Congress this very summer and 
asked us specifically to provide for an explicit statement that our 
Trade Representative and our State Department would not be out trying 
to interfere with the health regulations of other countries around this 
world who are trying to protect their children from the problem of 
tobacco just as we are trying to protect ours.
  As the New York Times wrote recently, Washington can surely remove 
tobacco from the category of products that get aggressive support for 
opening foreign markets. American companies and the American Government 
unleash sophisticated marketing campaigns that increase smoking and, of 
course, thereby increase preventable death in many countries where 
people do not fully understand its danger. That gives Washington a 
responsibility to undo the damage, and that is precisely what this 
House would be doing this morning in adopting this amendment.
  This amendment has been endorsed by all of the leading public health 
organizations that have been struggling with the menace of tobacco in 
this country. The American Lung Association, Dr. C. Everett Koop, 
President Reagan's Surgeon General, has spoken out with reference to 
this matter, and I believe we will constructively move forward this 
morning to adopt an amendment that really for the first time in this 
Congress goes on record concerning our feelings about the problems of 
tobacco.
  And I hope that we will see this incorporated into the instructions 
that go to every one of our commercial and economic counselors around 
the globe, so that they will understand full well that anything they 
might do on behalf of an American tobacco company has been seriously 
and narrowly limited to those most arbitrary regulations that have 
nothing to do with public health and safety. Their job should be, as 
emissaries for our country, to encourage other countries to promote 
health and safety and well-being for their children, and not to promote 
the sale of a product that is the leading cause of preventable death in 
this world.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for approval of the amendment, as amended.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Doggett-Meehan 
amendment because our Government should do everything it can to prevent 
the use of tobacco products--regardless if that use occurs in the 
United States or abroad. The amendment before us is simple--it merely 
prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to help tobacco companies market 
their products overseas.
  Overseas communities clearly represent the future market for 
America's tobacco products. Since 1990, the sale of Philip Morris 
tobacco products have increased in this country by about 5 percent. 
However, during the same time period, Philip Morris' overseas sales 
skyrocketed by 80 percent.
  Worse still, the new smokers who are attracted to these U.S. tobacco 
products are children. For example just 2 years after American 
cigarettes were introduced to Taiwan, smoking rates among Taiwanese 
teenagers jumped from 22 to 32 percent. In Korea, the number of male 
teens who smoked almost doubled to 30 percent just 1 year after United 
States tobacco products entered the market.
  Mr. Speaker, in my view, each of us should do everything we can to 
reduce smoking worldwide--not just in the United States. This is 
especially true when you consider that it's the kids of the world who 
are most susceptible to the marketing of this lethal product.
  I urge my colleagues to take this small, but worthy step to reduce 
the world's addiction to tobacco by limiting our country's ability to 
push tobacco use abroad. I urge you to support the Doggett amendment--
let's not spend anymore taxpayer dollars to boost these lethal tobacco 
products overseas.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, 
which will take us one more step toward a consistent Federal tobacco 
policy.
  Tobacco products kill over 3 million people every year, including 
400,000 Americans. Every day, thousands of young people start smoking. 
One in three will die from cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses 
caused by smoking. American taxpayers should not be subsidizing this 
deadly product.
  We in the United States are facing a public health crisis over the 
effects of tobacco use. In fact, we spend almost $200 million each year 
to warn Americans about the dangers of tobacco and prevent its use.
  But it is irresponsible fiscal and health policy for the Federal 
Government to then turn around and promote the sale of tobacco products 
overseas. What kind of an example are we setting for the rest of the 
world? What kind of an example are we setting for our own kids here in 
the United States who are being told not to smoke?
  It's time for this hypocrisy to end. We must make our Federal tobacco 
policy consistent with our public health policy.
  Today, we have an opportunity to move another step down the road to 
dissolving the Federal Government's partnership with the tobacco 
industry. We must stop using taxpayer dollars to subsidize a product 
that kills millions of adults, addicts our kids, and costs billions a 
year in health care.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this attack on 
farmers. Singling out one legal product is wrong. It this amendment 
passes, the U.S. Trade Representative will be prevented from using 
America's influence with foreign countries to eliminate unfair foreign 
trade barriers imposed on a legal, American product grown by family 
farmers. One third of the tobacco grown in this country is exported. 
Foreign markets for American tobacco are vital to small tobacco farmers 
and their communities. This legislation represents an assault on 
America's family farmers.
  If USTR is no longer allowed to take action against trade barriers 
imposed on these American products, foreign governments will impose 
such barriers at will. We would never do this to other legal, products 
such as American automobiles, American computers, American seafood, 
American beef, or American airplanes. We're fighting to gain access to 
foreign markets for these products. Not doing so for tobacco is unfair 
and is bad policy. Congress would not dare do this to any other group 
of American Producers.
  USTR's hands would be tied in negotiating trade deals with countries 
where tobacco is but one of a host of items considered. A country could 
ban all American tobacco, a violation of the General Agreements on 
Tariffs and Trade. Yet, USTR would be prevented from taking action, 
even if a clear violation has occurred.
  There is nothing to be gained by tying the hands of USTR. This will 
not prevent people from smoking. Those who choose to smoke will simply 
buy cigarettes made in countries where tobacco production is not 
regulated as it is here. Countries where children are paid poverty 
wages to make cigarettes in horrible working conditions. Countries that 
do not regulate the use of pesticides. Countries that do not inspect 
manufacturers for sanitary procedures. This amendment won't reduce 
smoking. It will only benefit foreign tobacco companies and farmers at 
the expense of 124,000 American family farmers.
  This is the crop insurance vote all over again. This body agreed that 
singling out one commodity that receives crop insurance would be 
discriminatory, and defeated an attempt earlier this year to eliminate 
it for tobacco farmers. This amendment is another unfair attack on 
hard-working, god-fearing farmers playing by the rules. I urge you to 
support America's right and responsibility to enforce international 
agreements and to support American farmers. Vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Doggett-Meehan-Hansen-DeGette amendment because the Federal Government 
should not be in the business of assisting the tobacco industry in 
promoting its deadly and addictive products either in the United States 
or in other countries.
  The U.S. tobacco industry exploits the domestic market by flooding 
our communities with billboard, magazine and newspaper advertisements 
and sponsoring concerts and sporting events. They have launched their 
campaigns with the knowledge of the addictive and deadly effects of 
tobacco and for years, kept this information from the public. Worse 
yet, while they knew that tobacco kills, the industry targeted our 
children and communities

[[Page H8013]]

of color by promoting the ubiquitous Joe Camel and exploiting cultural 
events such as Juneteenth and Cinco de Mayo festivals.
  With U.S. sales lagging in the United States, the tobacco industry 
has turned to foreign markets to launch their high-profile ads where 
once again, they are targeting teens and women of color in Asia, 
Africa, Central, South America, the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe. As a 
result, worldwide use of American tobacco has skyrocketed over the past 
10 years. Foreign sales now account for more than half of all sales for 
Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds.
  Due to the thousands of tobacco-related illnesses and deaths that 
have resulted from the use of tobacco, we are now in the midst of an 
unprecedented so-called settlement with the tobacco industry. We are 
finally discussing substantial curtailment of the promotion, 
advertising, and distribution of tobacco products in the United States. 
How then can we turn a blind eye and allow the tobacco industry to 
addict thousands of people in developing nations? How can we in good 
consciousness allow the U.S. Government to undermine health warning 
labels, ingredient disclosure laws and tobacco advertising restrictions 
in developing countries while we simultaneously bolster these 
provisions in the United States? With the full knowledge of the lethal 
effects of tobacco use, the Federal Government is no better than the 
tobacco industry if it encourages and enables tobacco promotion in 
other countries.
  Referring to the present deal with the tobacco company as a global 
tobacco settlement is cruel and hypocritical if we are going to assist 
the industry in addicting people in foreign countries. Enabling the 
tobacco industry to promote tobacco addiction while we curtail its use 
in the United States is an unconscionable and unacceptable double 
standard.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this important amendment which will 
send a clear message to the tobacco industry that the U.S. Government 
will not be an accomplice in promoting tobacco-related illnesses and 
death overseas.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 610. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds (1) that the United Nations undertaking is 
     a peacekeeping mission, (2) that such undertaking will 
     involve United States Armed Forces under the command or 
     operational control of a foreign national, and (3) that the 
     President's military advisors have not submitted to the 
     President a recommendation that such involvement is in the 
     national security interests of the United States and the 
     President has not submitted to the Congress such a 
     recommendation.
       Sec. 611. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used to provide the following amenities or personal 
     comforts in the Federal prison system--
       (1) in-cell television viewing except for prisoners who are 
     segregated from the general prison population for their own 
     safety;
       (2) the viewing of R, X, and NC-17 rated movies, through 
     whatever medium presented;
       (3) any instruction (live or through broadcasts) or 
     training equipment for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or 
     other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting 
     equipment of any sort;
       (4) possession of in-cell coffee pots, hot plates or 
     heating elements; or
       (5) the use or possession of any electric or electronic 
     musical instrument.
       Sec. 612. None of the funds made available in title II for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
     under the heading ``Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding and 
     Conversion'' may be used to implement sections 603, 604, and 
     605 of Public Law 102-567.
       Sec. 613. Any costs incurred by a Department or agency 
     funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken 
     in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall 
     be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to 
     such Department or agency: Provided, That the authority to 
     transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition 
     to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided 
     further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       Sec. 614. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be used to distribute or 
     make available any commercially published information or 
     material to a prisoner when it is made known to the Federal 
     official having authority to obligate or expend such funds 
     that such information or material is sexually explicit or 
     features nudity.
       Sec. 615. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading ``Office of Justice Programs--state and local law 
     enforcement assistance'', not more than ninety percent of the 
     amount to be awarded to an entity under the Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grant shall be made available to such an 
     entity when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that the entity 
     that employs a public safety officer (as such term is defined 
     in section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968) does not provide such a public 
     safety officer who retires or is separated from service due 
     to injury suffered as the direct and proximate result of a 
     personal injury sustained in the line of duty while 
     responding to an emergency situation or a hot pursuit (as 
     such terms are defined by State law) with the same or better 
     level of health insurance benefits that are paid by the 
     entity at the time of retirement or separation.
       Sec. 616. Expense Reimbursement.--Any Member of Congress 
     and any individual who is paid by the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate shall be 
     entitled to receive a reimbursement for any legal expenses 
     and other legitimate expenses incurred by such Member or 
     individual in connection with a Department of Justice 
     prosecution arising from or in connection with the 
     performance of official duties and brought against such 
     Member or individual if such Member or individual is 
     acquitted of the charges brought, the charges are dismissed 
     by a court, or the conviction is reversed on appeal.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments at this point in the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoekstra: At the end of the bill, 
     insert after the last section (preceding the short title) 
     the following new section:
       Sec. 617. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the expenses of an election officer appointed 
     by a court to oversee an election of any officer or trustee 
     for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it accomplishes an 
objective that we outlined last week on an earlier appropriations bill. 
What it does is it prohibits the spending of any additional dollars on 
the actual paying for the administration of a rerun election by the 
Teamsters Union. As my colleagues are aware, the Federal Government 
spent roughly $20 million in 1995 through 1997 to pay for a Teamsters' 
election. The efforts of these taxpayer dollars were subverted by 
individuals within the Teamsters, resulting in the election being 
thrown out because of illegalities and corruption in that election.
  This paid, these dollars paid for the actual printing of ballots, the 
counting of ballots, the payment of phones, the internal operations of 
a private organization. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility to 
incur these costs. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to 
oversee and ensure that no Federal election laws are violated, that 
there are no violations. This amendment says we will supervise but we 
will not pay for the day-to-day operations of a private organization.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. This amendment would attempt to validate an agreement entered 
into by the Justice Department under the Bush administration. We think 
that the gentleman's approach is

[[Page H8014]]

ill considered, that the Bush administration in the 1988 consent 
decrees require that the Teamsters pay for court supervision of the 
1991 election, which cost about $19 million. We oppose the amendment 
because we feel that we should have the flexibility to participate and 
to ensure that the elections are conducted fairly. Granted, that is an 
imperfect process, but nevertheless, because of the history of these 
elections and the seriousness of the charges, and they are being 
repeated here, certainly the Government should have a role in this and 
through the process of oversight. Obviously if this is knocked out we 
would not be able to participate in that.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not, this amendment does not remove the Federal 
Government from its proper role of oversight for the activities of 
private organizations. What this amendment does is it says we will not 
pay for the transactions that a private organization has to incur on a 
day-to-day business to fulfill its proper role to run its business.
  This is corporate welfare, corporate welfare at its worst, because 
when the Federal Government in 1996 did reach out and say, ``We are 
going to help you and we're going to pay for your day-to-day 
operations,'' people within the Teamsters said, ``Thank you very 
much,'' and they took this $20 million and they used it for illegal 
purposes, not to build their union, not to strengthen their 
organization, but to begin to destroy it and destroy the confidence at 
all levels and destroy the public perception of this organization.
  Mr. Chairman, this organization has the funds to run its day-to-day 
operations. The taxpayers should not once again be asked to foot the 
bill and to run the day-to-day operations. The Federal Government, the 
Labor Department and the Justice Department have a role and have a 
responsibility to monitor and supervise those elections, not to pay for 
the counting of the ballots and the printing of the ballots.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment, and 
in fact support its adoption. I thank the gentleman for offering the 
amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] 
will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?


          Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania

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

       Amendment No. 57 offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania:
       Page 117, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 617. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended, directly 
     or indirectly, to make any payment to, provide any financial 
     assistance to, or enter into any contract with, the Palestine 
     Broadcasting Corporation, any affiliate or successor agency 
     of such corporation, or any journalist employed by or 
     representing such corporation.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman like to speak on his reservation?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against this 
amendment because it proposes changing existing law, constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to make a point of order, or 
reserve a point of order at this point?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of amendment 57. From a 
merits point of view, the Palestinian Broadcast Corporation, which 
receives some funds from the United States, speaks out against the 
United States. But the important point I would like to make is I would 
like to, in the interest of bipartisanship, be able to delete language 
from the amendment. The words ``any affiliate or successor agency of 
such corporation or any journalist employed by or representing such 
corporation,'' I would like to delete that language by unanimous 
consent.
  If those in charge of both sides of the aisle would agree to that 
change, I would be very grateful, so the point of order which could be 
made would be cured. I would be very grateful if that could be agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that 
considering we are on the Justice-Commerce appropriation, the idea of 
having free speech move forward in this Chamber and not have a 
technicality rule over substance, I would appreciate it if both sides 
of the aisle would consider the possibility of the unanimous-consent 
request and deleting the language.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things for my good friend 
from Pennsylvania, who I was very pleased to work with on the Legal 
Services amendment this year and last year, and I did not do this 
lightly, and I would love to be able to accommodate the gentleman.
  First of all, when we are talking about free speech, the underlying 
issue here really is associated with free speech in USIA funding, the 
ability of groups in the Middle East to market their views and 
opinions. The gentleman's amendment would cut that off. We can argue 
about the content of that speech, but I think the gentleman's amendment 
cuts it off regardless of the content.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to make 
the clarification, the fact is this is not free speech, the United 
States is paying for it, and the Palestinian Broadcast Corporation is 
calling for the annihilation of the United States. I do not think we 
should fund agencies that call for the destruction of the United States 
and the destruction of other countries, including Israel. So it is not 
free speech, we are paying for it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, 
without debating that issue further, we are also operating under a very 
constrained unanimous-consent agreement here, and I think that it would 
set a bad precedent with some of these amendments that are coming up if 
we were to allow for them to be amended.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, 
reclaiming my time, the fact is the momentary seconds in this Chamber 
to allow the curative deletion would allow the Members to vote on the 
motion, and then your persuasive, thoughtful arguments could win the 
day on the merits.
  I believe it is not in the interests and the spirit of this body, nor 
this committee that has done such good work, to disallow this unanimous 
consent for the purpose of stifling debate and stifling the Members' 
ability to speak out for or against or vote for or against.
  So I would ask the ranking member to reconsider his original 
consideration of my request in the hopes that with comity and 
cooperation, we could move on and go to the merits of the matter.

[[Page H8015]]

                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from West Virginia insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part ``no amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing'' law. This 
amendment gives affirmative direction in effect, imposes additional 
duties, and modifies existing powers and duties.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] wish to 
be heard?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe, with all due 
respect to my good friend from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], with whom 
I have had an opportunity to work on Legal Services, and I am grateful, 
in this particular instance I do not believe this is legislating in an 
appropriation bill.
  The fact of the matter is we are saying no funds can go to the 
Palestinian Broadcast Corporation. Whether or not it talks about a 
successor agency does not put new duties, in my opinion, on anyone. It 
is surplusage language. It does not actually give new duties, nor does 
it violate the spirit or intent of the purpose of such restrictions 
that are normally placed.
  I do appreciate, Mr. Chairman, when there are new duties placed in 
legislation. I do not believe this is such a case. Therefore, I would 
respectfully request that the Chair find in favor of the amendment 
moving forward as is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is 
in the form of a limitation. The amendment seeks to deny funds for 
payments to, financial assistance for, or the entering into contracts 
with, the Palestinian Broadcast Corporation, or any affiliate or 
successor agency to the Palestinian Broadcast Corporation, or any 
journalist employed by or representing such corporation.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though amendment in the form of a negative restriction on 
funds in a bill might refrain from explicitly assigning new duties to 
officers of the government, if the putative limitation implicitly 
requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or make 
judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by law, 
then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point 
of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The proponent of a limitation assumes the burden of proving that any 
duties imposed by the provision are merely ministerial or are already 
required by law.
  The Chair in this instance must focus on the requirement in the 
amendment that the officials who administer the funds in question must 
determine what a ``successor agency'' to the Palestinian Broadcasting 
Corporation may be. Absent a showing that those officials are already 
charged with that responsibility or possessed of that information, the 
Chair must conclude that the amendment would impose a new duty on such 
officials.
  Accordingly, the Chair rules that the amendment changes existing law, 
is not in the form of a proper limitation and the point of order is 
sustained.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appeal the decision of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee?
  The decision of the Chair was sustained.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?


               Amendment No. 61 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

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

       Amendment No. 61 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       Page 117, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 627. (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated 
     to carry out this Act shall be used to deport or remove from 
     the United States any alien who was provided by the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service one of the following 
     identification numbers:
       A76553660.
       A76553650.
       A76553651.
       A76553661.
       A76553858.
       A76553862.
       A76553863.
       A76553876.
       A76553877.
       A76553665.
       A76553659.
       A76553658.
       A76553679.
       A76553678.
       A76553681.
       A76553654.
       A74553078.
       A74553079.
       A74553077.
       A76553683.
       A76553674.
       A76553652.
       A76553692.
       A76553649.
       A76553673.
       A76183163.
       A76183162.
       A76553653.
       A76553686.
       A76553688.
       A76553664.
       A76553871.
       A76553888.
       A76553684.
       A76553887.
       A76553657.
       A76553672.
       A76553685.
       A76553655.
       A76553688.
       A76553667.
       A76553682.
       A76553680.
       A74553085.
       A74553076.
       A76553690.
       A76553691.
       A76553698

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
September 25, 1997, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez] and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, right now there are people who are working 18 to 20 
hours a day under threat of beatings and torture. One might think I am 
describing a Third World country, but I am not. Right now these crimes 
are repeated in virtually every major city in this country. Why? 
Because the victims of these crimes are undocumented immigrants and 
their tormentors are using fear to silence them.
  Last July a group of disabled Mexican immigrants were discovered 
living in squalor in my district. They had been taken from their 
villages in Mexico, smuggled into this country, and forced to work to 
up to 18 hours a day. If they did not earn enough money, they were 
beaten.
  In this case, the victims could not bear their terrible treatment any 
longer. Knowing that they might be separated from their children and 
that they might be put up in jail, they still went to the police. These 
are brave people who exposed a terrible crime. Yet how are they 
treated? For the past 2 months they have been held in a motel in Queens 
while immigration officials decide their fate.
  I am offering an amendment today that will bar the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service from using its funds to deport the victims of 
these terrible crimes.
  Let me be perfectly clear: These people were brought to this country, 
they were tortured and beaten, they were enslaved because their abusers 
thought their victims would keep silent out of fear of reprisals. My 
amendment will put this Nation on notice that we will no longer 
tolerate the abuse of the vulnerable.
  If this amendment fails to pass, what message is this Congress 
sending to the country? That you can smuggle people into this country, 
enslave them, beat them, make a fortune with their labor, and you know 
if they turn you in, they will be deported?
  What a great deal for the owners of sweatshops. What a terrible deal 
for

[[Page H8016]]

the victims. Is this how we should treat these people who lived through 
hell, and helped us uncover this awful crime? Shall we send them 
packing, or shall we show mercy?
  My amendment is an act of compassion on behalf of a group of people 
who have been through hell.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who rises in opposition?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I state that I am in opposition only in a very 
technical sense in order to be able to speak to the gentlewoman's 
concerns.
  Let me say first off that the gentlewoman has raised a very 
troublesome matter to all of us. I think every person in this country, 
especially in this Congress, sympathizes with the plight of the people 
that the gentlewoman has mentioned, and want to be of help. We are 
trying to be of help.
  I have discussed the matter with the gentlewoman before the amendment 
was offered and have pledged to her my assistance in every aspect that 
we can think of, and that of my colleagues, in helping her and the 
others, to help these people.
  Under the present law, the Attorney General of the United States has 
certain prerogatives to intervene in this case and to prevent 
deportation and to help in any number of ways.
  The current law provides the Attorney General with authority to 
withhold deportation for humanitarian purposes and other circumstances.

                              {time}  1045

  There are other remedies under current law that can be exercised for 
granting visas for witnesses, for example, who have information of 
critical value to the U.S. law enforcement officials, and this matter 
is under investigation, obviously, for perhaps criminal activity, among 
other things.
  So I pledge to the gentlewoman that we will all assist her in the 
effort to relieve the plight of these people.
  However, the gentlewoman's amendment on an appropriations bill would 
be unprecedented. We have never done what the gentlewoman is asking the 
Congress to do here, and I think it would set a terrible precedent for 
us to intervene in a particular individual's problem with the 
bureaucracy, before the bureaucracy has a chance to deal with it.
  So I would hope at the conclusion of our discussion, the gentlewoman 
might withdraw the amendment so that we can then proceed to help her 
administratively in the matter.
  We will ask the Department of Justice and the INS, about the custody 
and care of these people, any plans that are being discussed that may 
involve deportation, any options that they are talking about to provide 
relief from deportation based on the authorities already available to 
the Attorney General, and I pledge that we will work with the 
gentlewoman in a vigorous way.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman's 
help. I would share with the gentleman that these people live right now 
in total limbo, that they have exhausted every mechanism. I have called 
on the Attorney General, and she has yet to act on this case. So I 
would appreciate that the chairman and the ranking member from our side 
will work with us, with me, to make sure that a positive and 
constructive resolution is granted based on a humanitarian act. We have 
to show compassion, and I know that it will set a precedent, but this 
is the only mechanism that right now I have before me before the end of 
this session.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to congratulate 
the gentlewoman for bringing the matter to the attention of the 
Congress and the country. She is to be highly commended for that, and 
it is too bad that the gentlewoman has had to resort to an 
extraordinary procedure here in order to gain the attention, I hope, of 
the Attorney General and the staff of the Justice Department and INS on 
trying to gain some relief for these people, and I pledge to the 
gentlewoman that we will help you in that regard.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to associate myself 
with the gentleman's sentiments. This is an extraordinary situation, 
and I commend the gentlewoman and her colleague from New York for 
bringing this issue to the Congress. We do understand how hard the 
gentlewoman has worked to bring it to the attention of the 
administration, and we are a bit chagrined to see that there has not 
been the kind of responsiveness that would be merited in the 
circumstances. I think the proposal that the gentlewoman has worked out 
with the Chairman is one that will get attention, and at the same time 
not create the kind of unsatisfactory precedent that the chairman is 
concerned with.
  I join the chairman in assuring the gentlewoman that we will do 
everything necessary and everything in our power to make sure that the 
gentlewoman does get responsiveness from the appropriate authorities.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is one other 
option that the gentlewoman and I have discussed. If the Attorney 
General and the administration does not take appropriate action in the 
immediate future before we go to conference with the Senate on this 
bill, there is always the option of the conferees on this bill with the 
House and Senate, taking further action in respect to the matter.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Manton], my colleague in whose district some of the 
victims live.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez], the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. King], my friends 
and colleagues.
  Most of my colleagues probably are already aware of the tragic case 
of some 57 hearing-impaired Mexican immigrants smuggled into this 
country illegally and held in involuntary servitude, if you will. This 
was brought to light through the national media on July 20 of this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, these unfortunate individuals had been put up in two 
apartment buildings in Queens, New York, one located in my 
congressional district and one in Representative Velazquez's district. 
They were forced to live in inadequate housing and to panhandle by 
selling trinkets on the streets and subways of New York.
  In addition to being hearing-impaired, they knew only the Spanish 
language and had no means to readily communicate with anyone to tell 
them of their plight. They were simply at the mercy of their so-called 
employers.
  Thanks to the good efforts of the New York City Police Department, in 
particular Officers Phil Rogan and Billy Milan of the 115th Precinct, 
these individuals were freed from the control of their unscrupulous 
masters. Sadly, their ordeal did not end there as they face potential 
deportation in the near future if the Velazquez-Schumer-King amendment 
is not passed.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been over 2 months since this situation came to 
light, yet the status of these immigrants remains in limbo as they 
await a decision by the Federal Government while being held in a local 
motel.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman 
from West Virginia for their compassion, and we look forward to working 
with them to resolve this matter.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I will now withdraw my amendment, and I 
want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I look forward 
to working together to bring some peace to these victims.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which

[[Page H8017]]

further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 33 offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman];
  Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Bartlett]; Amendment No. 36 offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Hoekstra].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilman

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilman:
       Page 67, line 19, insert before the period the following: 
     Provided, That, of such amount, not more than $356,242,740 
     shall be available for obligation until the Secretary of 
     State has made one or more designations of organizations as 
     foreign terrorist organizations pursuant to section 219(a) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)), as 
     added by section 302 of Public Law 104-132 (110 Stat. 1214, 
     1248).


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396, 
noes 6, answered ``present'' 5, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 457]

                               AYES--396

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--6

     Dellums
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Paul
     Rahall

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--5

     Bonior
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kucinich
     Moran (VA)
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Buyer
     Collins
     Conyers
     Dicks
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lazio
     McInnis
     Meek
     Owens
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Spratt
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Weygand

                              {time}  1111

  Mr. MILLER of California and Mr. DELLUMS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no''.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH and Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  Mr. PAUL changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 239, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time in 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


             Amendments Offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendments offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Bartlett] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland:
       Amendment No. 2: In title IV relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES'', in the item relating to 
     ``International Organizations and Conferences--contributions 
     to international organizations'' strike ``of which not to 
     exceed $54,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     payment of arrearages'' and all that follows through the 
     second proviso.
       Amendment No. 3: In title IV relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES'', in the item relating to 
     ``International Organizations and Conferences--contributions 
     to international peacekeeping activities'' strike ``of which 
     not to exceed $46,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for payment of arrearages'' and all that follows 
     through the first proviso.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 242, not voting 26, as follows:

[[Page H8018]]

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               AYES--165

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fowler
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Buyer
     Collins
     Dicks
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hostettler
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lazio
     McInnis
     Meek
     Owens
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Spratt
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Weygand

                              {time}  1121

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Collins for, with Mr. Quinn against.

       Mr. Gibbons for, with Ms. Harman against.
  Mr. EWING changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 189, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 459]

                               AYES--213

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hefner

[[Page H8019]]


     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Burton
     Buyer
     Capps
     Collins
     Dicks
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lazio
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Meek
     Owens
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Weygand
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1130

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Collins for, with Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas against.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LUTHER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Personal explanation

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 459 I inserted my card in 
a voting station and voted ``aye''. A green light appeared next to my 
name. However, I am officially listed as not having voted. I want to 
indicate for the Record that I supported the Hoekstra amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words as the designee of the manager.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage a four-way colloquy with the 
chairman and two colleagues from adjacent districts, the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Latham] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], 
regarding problems with the smuggling of illegal aliens in Nebraska and 
Iowa.
  Mr. Chairman, Nebraska and Iowa are major destinations for illegal 
aliens and alien smugglers due to extremely low unemployment rates, the 
number of meat-packing plants, and other labor-intensive industries, 
and due to the fact that two major interstate highways which cross the 
States, I-80 and I-29, are serving as what seems to be considered a 
low-risk corridor for smuggling aliens to other parts of our Nation.
  The Omaha INS office, which serves both States, could not respond to 
approximately 55 possible instances of alien smuggling, including 382 
suspected illegal aliens in Nebraska and Iowa, because the INS did not 
allocate additional resources to respond.
  The INS Omaha District Office has a small staff when compared with 
nearby district offices. Additionally, it does not have a much needed 
antismuggling unit, in contrast to other interior INS districts in the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, do you agree that INS should allocate additional agents 
as part of an antismuggling unit to the Omaha District Office to fight 
the smuggling of illegal aliens into and through Nebraska and Omaha?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I am aware of the problems with alien smuggling in 
Nebraska and Iowa that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has 
raised. It is for that very reason that the House report includes 
language directing INS to review the requirements of State and 
localities in the central and western region of the country when 
allocating additional personnel to apprehend, detain, and remove 
illegal aliens.
  I will continue to work with my colleague to find a solution to the 
problem during our consultations with INS on personnel deployment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers].
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for yielding.
  I would like to also, Mr. Chairman, take this opportunity to express 
my continued concern about the rather regular occurrence of alien 
smuggling in and through Nebraska, particularly along I-80, and I 
concur with the request of my colleague for an antismuggling unit in 
the Omaha INS District Office.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Barrett] so much. It has happened in his own district.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Bereuter] for yielding.
  I have followed with great interest the concerns of my colleagues 
from Nebraska because my home State of Iowa shares many of the same 
problems.
  As a member of the appropriations subcommittee which funds INS and 
other Department of Justice agencies, I recognize the budgetary 
constraints and limitations that face our law enforcement agencies. 
During the debate on the immigration reform bill last year, I 
successfully offered an amendment mandating the INS coordinate its 
activities with local and State agencies. This cooperation of local, 
State, and Federal agents will bring efficient and thorough protection 
to our urban and rural areas, especially in States with few INS 
officers.
  I want to highlight also the work of the Tri-State Drug Task Force, 
headquartered in Sioux City, IA, as an example of effective 
coordination. The task force has worked tirelessly to stem the flow of 
illegal drugs to Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota by coordinating local 
police, sheriffs' offices, and Federal agents from the INS, the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, and the Marshal's Service.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this Member thanks 
his distinguished colleagues and especially the distinguished gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman, for this colloquy with my two 
colleagues and I. I thank him for participating in the colloquy.


          Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 54 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       Page 117, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 617. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay the 
     salary or expenses of any official or employee of the 
     Department of State to make or carry out any contract 
     authorizing any private entity to assess a charge or fee upon 
     United States citizens for information about United States 
     passports.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
September 25, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. This amendment is very simple. It is intended to stop the 
State Department from charging Americans twice for the same service.
  The State Department has begun charging, as I think many of my 
colleagues know now, U.S. citizens $1.05 per minute for information 
about their U.S. passports. In order to get this information, they must 
call a 900 number that is run by a for-profit corporation. Americans 
who have already paid a $65 passport fee are now required to pay

[[Page H8020]]

for information that used to be available for free.
  Something, it seems to me, is very wrong with this picture, 
especially because passport applicants are already paying for more 
passport services than they are receiving. Let us face it, whether we 
think it is deserved or not, 900 telephone numbers carry certain 
connotations with the American public, from the racy to the ridiculous. 
That forum should not be used to sell information that should already 
belong to the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, the idea behind a user fee such as the passport fee is 
that we are paying for what it actually costs the Government to provide 
us that service. The user fees should not be used for a profit engine, 
and passport applicants are supposed to get what they pay for. But the 
$65 fee that U.S. citizens pay up front for passport processing already 
more than covers the cost of passport services that they receive from 
the State Department.
  A while back, the Department conducted a fee study to justify the 
latest increase in the passport fee to $65. But the study, in fact, did 
not justify that amount. The Department did its best to attribute every 
possible cost to passport users. It even went so far to factor in the 
proportional cost of U.S. overseas consular services which might be 
used by American travelers. But even then, the total was nothing close 
to $65. The Department has been at a loss to know what to do in 
response to that finding, so they have not released it to the public.
  Let me say again, this is a kind of double taxation. We have had 
numerous complaints in my State, particularly in my counties of 
Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer, and Burlington. As a matter of fact, the 
county clerk in Ocean County was the one who brought this to my 
attention some time ago. So this is in response to that criticism of 
the people from those counties.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is under 
consideration in the conference on the State Department authorization 
bill that has migrated onto this bill.
  I understand that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is 
opposed to the notion that people should have to pay for a telephone 
call to obtain information on passport applications. The problem was 
that the State Department did not have the personnel to be able to 
provide information, and that this was a way to try to improve service 
in exchange for a small charge.
  While I am willing to accept the Smith amendment, I believe there are 
many unanswered questions about the amendment. If the 1-900 number is 
banned on October 1, as the amendment would require, things will revert 
to the way they were before, where the service level was 
unsatisfactory. There is a contractor providing the 1-900 service, and 
if the contract is cut off, these people will be laid off, and there 
could be termination costs.
  The State Department indicates that if they have to switch to a 
different manner of providing service, such as a 1-800 number, assuming 
money is available to pay for that service, a contract would have to be 
recompeted, and it could take months before a contract could be awarded 
and a new service instituted.
  So in the short term, this amendment has the possibility of 
decreasing the availability of information to people trying to track 
their passport applications. So I am not convinced that the amendment 
is the final answer on the issue.
  But we are willing to work with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] and take the issue into conference and see if we can work out a 
solution that will adequately address the situation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for 
accepting the amendment.
  Let me say clearly, the effective date is open to movement, and the 
date of enactment does not have to be necessarily the effective date, 
so that there is a transition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] for his understanding and cooperation on this issue and the 
leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], as well as the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking member.
  The American people and, I think, the Members of the House should 
just roughly understand what is happening here. The State Department 
decided that they were upset because we did not fully fund everything 
that they were asking for. So they decided to come up with their own 
tax on the American people and say, well, we do not have enough money 
to answer the phones, so we will just contract and let somebody else 
perform that duty.
  It is almost as if we decided that we were upset that we did not get 
enough money for our legislative offices and said, ``Let us not answer 
the phones. Let us get a company to answer the phones for us, and it is 
a 900 number, and they will tell what we are in favor of or not in 
favor of and free up our staff to do something else.'' It is kind of 
outrageous.
  I just want to raise the ante from what the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] said. It is not double, it is triple taxation. They pay 
taxes on the 15th of April.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
has expired.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is basically a triple taxation. We pay 
taxes on the 15th of April; then there is a user fee which is a tax of 
$65 on the American people in order to get the passport, so that will 
tax twice. Then they decide that that is not good enough, we are going 
to tax people for the information, like going to the grocery store and 
ask the grocer where the milk is, and he says, ``Ask that guy, but he's 
going to charge you to tell you where the milk is.'' I mean it is an 
absolute absurdity.
  There is a solution, and I appreciate the suggestion, and it is 
certainly a good one. An additional suggestion would be to dedicate the 
$65 fee to the State Department to allow them to use that money rather 
than putting that money back into the general fund. But triple taxing 
the American people for basic government information, basic service to 
which they are entitled, is an absolute absurdity, and I salute the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the complaints that we have 
been getting are very much like what the gentleman is talking about. If 
people called my office and the gentleman's office and other Members' 
offices seeking basic information about that case that we have under 
consideration with the IRS or any other Federal bureaucracy, it would 
be absurd to charge them for that phone call, and that is what this is 
all about. And let me reiterate again to the Members that the $65 for 
the passport more than covers. There is a profit there for the State 
Department, regrettably; it ought to be lower, it should accommodate 
what does the service cost, and then that is what the cost should be.
  So this amendment seeks to do what the IRS and nobody else could even 
think of doing; that is, having a 900 number to give basic information. 
We are in the service business. We ought to enhance that service, and 
an 800 number would do that job, and that is what we are hoping will 
come out of this.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct.
  We have a case of a nun who lived in my district. She had been 
adopted, had a different name in her adulthood, was selected by her 
order to represent them overseas and had to get a passport. She had to 
call this 900 number. She got trapped in this system. They did not know 
how to fix this thing. She was spending $60 calling 900 numbers. 
Everybody was looking at her kind of crookedly in her convent, as my 
colleagues know, why is she on this 900

[[Page H8021]]

number all night, and the deal was she was the nun who could not fly. 
They could not fix this for her.
  Mr. Chairman, certainly she is entitled to basic government services 
as every other U.S. citizen is without being taxed three times, and I 
appreciate the cooperation of gentleman from New Jersey and the 
chairman and ranking member on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Kleczka

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

       Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Kleczka:
       Page 117, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 617. None of the funds appropriated to carry out this 
     Act may be used to purchase or install live fingerprint 
     scanners in Immigration and Naturalization Service field 
     offices or card scanners at Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service centers unless the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service refunds, not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, all fees paid to the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service for designated fingerprinting 
     service certification under 8 C.F.R. Sec. 103.2(e).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
September 25, 1997, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] and a 
Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] reserves a 
point of order, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the point of order that has 
been raised. I will not pursue the amendment, I will withdraw it at a 
later time, but I would like to establish for the record the situation 
that the amendment seeks to address.
  Mr. Chairman, last summer the INS instituted a designated 
fingerprinting service to ask local firms to enter into contracts with 
the INS to help them out in this fingerprinting operation. The Senate 
bill and the bill before us today does away with outside interests, 
outside firms, nonprofit organizations from doing the fingerprinting 
for the Immigration Service. The immigration Service under both 
products will do this function themselves, and that is fine, and I do 
not take issue with that because of some of the past problems.
  However, the situation that we are looking at today is that the INS 
is not positive, they are not sure that they are going to refund the 
fees collected from these organizations who, in good faith, paid the 
money to do the service for a period of 3 years. I have been contacted 
in my district by two organizations who sent them their application fee 
of $370. Now they are being told by the Congress, We don't need you any 
more. Their inquiry is whether or not they are going to get their money 
back, or a prorated portion of that. I called the INS, and they 
indicated that they are not sure whether or not they are going to 
refund the dollars. The amendment's purpose is to mandate that the INS 
give the money back.
  We have just seen hearings in both Houses of Congress this week about 
a Federal agency which treated our constituents in a shoddy manner, and 
these tax filers are angry over that. Some time ago we heard about a 
situation where an elderly individual in error sent a $50,000 check to 
the IRS. He subsequently passed away, his heirs found the error, and 
now they want the money back. The IRS says they are not going to give 
it back. This is a type of situation that we get ourselves into when 
the Federal agency does something goofy, similar to what the previous 
amendment or the speakers on the previous amendment had to relate to 
us, that now they are charging to talk to them through a 900 number.
  Before this thing gets out of hand, know full well, Members, that 
there are 3,700 organizations who in good faith sent the application 
through to the INS, sent their $370. Now we are yanking the task away 
from them, and I think it is wise that we mandate that the INS give the 
money back. If we do not need them any more, give the money back.
  And let me ask the chairman of the committee to indicate to at least 
this Member what his knowledge of the situation is and how he could 
possibly help out in this situation.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing the 
matter to our attention. Although the gentleman's amendment I think is 
out of order and he says he is going to withdraw the amendment, 
nevertheless, in spite of his withdrawing it and in response to his 
concern, I will be looking into the status of that issue with the INS 
and the Justice Department to see if there is some way we can resolve 
the matter, and I appreciate the gentleman's interest.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky very 
much.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman 
from Wisconsin. He has raised a real fairness issue here. The INS has 
gone out, trying to address the tremendous numbers of fingerprints they 
have to process, and contracted with the private entities to do this, 
and now the Congress is looking at all that, and I am satisfied with 
that policy; we are pulling that back in. And it is only fair, and I 
appreciate the gentleman bringing that to the committee, and I know 
that his constituents and all those private sector entities across the 
country are performing this service and will appreciate his bringing 
this to our attention too.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment, but know full well that I and others in this body who have 
organizations involved in this will be watching the activity of the INS 
to make sure that they just give the money back.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
is withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments?


            Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       Page 117, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 617. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to conduct any study of the medicinal use or 
     legalization of marijuana or any other drug or substance in 
     schedule I under part B of the Controlled Substances Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
September 25, 1997, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] and a Member 
opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple, 
straightforward amendment. It simply reaffirms what I believe to be 
current policy of this body and current policy of the administration, 
and that is to not use taxpayer funds for the study of legalization of 
drugs. And the amendment simply directs that no funds made available 
under this act for these departments or agencies of the Federal 
Government shall be used for the study of legalization or medicinal 
uses of marijuana or any other schedule I controlled substance.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to read into the record exactly what a 
schedule I controlled substance is, and that includes marijuana through 
its primary ingredient THC. Under title 21, section 812 of the United 
States Code, a schedule I substance is a, quote, drug or other 
substance that has a high potential for abuse, close quote. It is 
further, quote, a drug or other substance that has no currently 
acceptable and no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the 
United States, close quote. Further, quote, there is a lack of accepted 
safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical 
supervision, close quote.

[[Page H8022]]

  That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I think it is entirely appropriate 
that we make absolutely clear to the American people that our 
Government is not going to be funding studies that go contrary to well-
established existing law based on scientific fact and study over many 
years.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is entirely consistent with the 
explicit stated policy of this administration. As evidence of that I 
quote from a hearing on May 1, 1997, before the Subcommittee on 
National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, of which I was present 
and engaged in questioning with General McCaffrey, head of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy, and I quote General McCaffrey's 
response.

       It's unequivocally clear in writing, that the Attorney 
     General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
     Secretary of Education and I and others supported, obviously 
     approved by the President, are unalterably opposed to the 
     legalization of drugs for the surreptitious legalization of 
     drugs under the guise of medical uses.

  Mr. Chairman, if any department of our Government ought to be using 
taxpayer funds to study the legalization or so-called medicinal uses of 
drugs, it ought not to be the Department of Justice. The Department of 
Justice is tasked under our Constitution and our laws with enforcing 
our criminal laws, some of which I have just read, the Controlled 
Substances Act. It would be foolhardy to allow the Department of 
Justice to talk out of both sides of its mouth, on the one hand 
enforcing those drug laws which contain as a controlled mind-altering 
substance marijuana, and yet at the same time talk out of the other 
side of its mouth in saying, ``But we're going to study whether or not 
it ought to be legalized,'' which is an implicit message that maybe it 
ought not to be a controlled substance.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that the Justice Department 
is studying the medicinal uses of marijuana. If the gentleman knows 
about that, I will be very interested to know about it.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment, and in fact 
support its adoption.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would cite to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky the fact that the administration is proposing 
to spend $1 million of taxpayer funds for the so-called medicinal use 
study of marijuana.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would yield, that is not the Justice 
Department. I am told that is the office of the drug czar in the White 
House.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. That is correct, that is the ONDCP.
  Mr. ROGERS. And, of course, we do not appropriate for the office of 
the drug czar in the White House. We appropriate for the Justice 
Department. Now if the gentleman has information that the Justice 
Department is studying the legalization or medicinal uses of marijuana, 
give that to me forthwith.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely 
correct. At this time we do not. My problem is, and the reason that I 
think this amendment is necessary, is that even though the director of 
ONDCP states on record that he is not in favor of studying legalization 
of drugs, at the same time through his office they are seeking to spend 
$1 million. If they can do it in ONDCP, talk out of both sides of their 
mouth, my fear is other departments, including the Department of 
Justice, may do the same thing; and I think this is an important 
guarantee for the people of this country to know that at least these 
departments, including most importantly the Department of Justice, 
tasked with enforcing our drug laws, is not and will not be utilizing 
taxpayer moneys for such foolhardy studies.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Just very briefly, I appreciate the gentleman's affirming that the 
administration has no intention to undertake such studies or to 
institute such a policy. To my knowledge, I agree with the gentleman, 
there is nothing in this bill that relates to the gentleman's 
amendment, and in that sense the gentleman's amendment really has no 
effect on our bill. And in that sense it is kind of a progravity 
amendment and if the gentleman from Kentucky wants to accept it, I 
certainly do not have opposition to it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1200

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the 
bill?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have one more colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the motion is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon 
[Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy. I am 
joined in this colloquy by the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], 
and I do not see him on the floor right now, so, if I may, I will just 
do my part of this.
  I am joining the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] to support 
continued funding for the Northwest Emergency Assistance Program. The 
Hire the Fishers Program has been successful in providing jobs for over 
300 displaced fisher families in the Pacific Northwest, while working 
to recover the region's economically vital salmon runs.
  The program includes a sea data collection program in order to better 
manage our salmon fisheries, and a habitat restoration program designed 
to give fishers an active role in returning the Pacific salmon runs to 
a harvestable level.
  The Hire the Fisher Program, Mr. Chairman, is an excellent model of a 
Federal-State partnership that works both for the environment and the 
economy. It is a win-win for the States, the fishers, and the fish. In 
short, it is a program that continues to deserve our support.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's interest, and 
also the work of our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs], who has been tireless in his pursuit of this issue, as has the 
gentlewoman. Both have contacted me about this already, and other 
programs related to the problems of the Pacific Northwest fisheries. In 
fact, the bill already provides significant resources to address these 
problems.
  However, the NEAP Program is not a program which has ever been funded 
out of this bill, and no funds have been requested by the White House 
in their budget request. However, knowing of the gentlewoman's 
interests, that of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and 
others, I will be happy to look further at the program as we proceed 
along.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his gracious attention.
  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. 
Hobson] 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.

[[Page H8023]]



                          ____________________