[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10918-H10940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2267, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND 
  STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up 
the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report to accompany H.R.

[[Page H10919]]

2267 and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 11 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are honored to be the last train leaving the station 
of this session. I am also here to tell my colleagues that this is the 
last time I am going to be the last train leaving the station, for a 
variety of reasons.
  But I am pleased to report and bring to my colleagues today the 
conference report on our bill. This bill provides $31.8 billion for the 
programs under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice, State, and Judiciary of the Committee on Appropriations. We 
have come a long way in addressing a number of very important issues, 
but we have not let up on our strong commitment to law enforcement and 
the fight against crime.
  That is what this bill really is all about. It is not about census. 
It is not about 245(i). It is mainly the fight against crime. Of the 
total funding in this conference report, the lion's share, $17.5 
billion, is for the Department of Justice programs. That is an increase 
of $1.04 billion over fiscal year 1997 dedicated to continuing the war 
on drugs, making our neighborhoods safer for children and their 
families, bringing our borders under control, and boosting juvenile 
justice efforts to get kids on the right track and away from a life of 
crime.
  This Congress deserves credit for its leadership in reducing crime. 
The Nation's crime rate is lower today than in over a decade. Our 
commitment over the last 2 years has triggered a decline in the crime 
rate in each of those years.
  In 1996 alone, serious reported crime in the United States declined 3 
percent, including an 11 percent decline in murder rates. For State and 
local law enforcement assistance, our communities, our sheriffs, and 
our police departments, the conference report includes over $4.8 
billion. That is a $658 million increase to give our communities an 
arsenal of programs that target violent criminals, sex offenders, 
domestic violence, child abuse, and juvenile crime.
  And on juvenile crime, the hottest topic today in law enforcement, we 
hit the problem head on using both prevention and law enforcement 
initiatives. We provide a $489 million amount, triple the amount 
provided last year, for juvenile crime to build a hopeful future for 
America's youth. That is this Congress in action.
  While overall crime is down, our kids are committing violent crimes 
at an alarming rate. One out of five people arrested for violent crimes 
is under 18 years of age, a 70 percent increase in the last 10 years. 
The conference report provides $239 million for juvenile crime 
prevention, a 36 percent increase over last year, for programs 
targeting dangerous precursors to crime, like teenage drug and alcohol 
abuse and programs that steer troubled kids away from crime. We provide 
$250 million for a new juvenile crime block grant to States to 
encourage them to adopt reforms to stop the revolving door of juvenile 
justice and to ensure that kids know that they will be punished if they 
commit a crime.
  For the war on drugs, we provide another substantial increase, 
including an $84 million increase for the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, to target drug traffickers in the Southwest border and 
Caribbean drug corridors, and an $89 million increase to block the 
manufacture and distribution of heroin and methamphetamine.
  To control our borders, we provide a $228 million increase for the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, including 1,000 new border 
patrol agents, double what the administration asked of us.

                              {time}  2015

  We restore integrity to the naturalization process by ending the 
fingerprint scam that allowed felons by the thousands in 1996 to 
receive the most precious benefit this country can offer, United States 
citizenship. We are also requiring criminal record checks by law, no 
longer a policy, by law. The department did not follow their policy. 
They waived the policy last year and allowed felons to come into the 
country unchecked for their criminal records. No longer.
  And we address the personal hardships of families and employers that 
have relied on section 245(i) by allowing people who file for permanent 
immigrant visas and later certifications before January 14, 1998 to 
continue to adjust to permanent residency under this provision without 
having to leave the country. At the same time, by letting this 
provision sunset, we require future immigrants to play by the rules and 
respect them.
  For the Judiciary, $3.2 billion is provided, including a cost-of-
living salary adjustment for justices and judges.
  Regarding the 9th Circuit of the Federal Courts of Appeal, the 
conference agreement provides for a study of all circuits that has a 
timetable of 10 months from the date of quorum to conduct necessary 
studies plus up to an additional 2 months to submit recommendations on 
alternative structures for the Federal Circuit Courts.
  On the Hyde provision, we have language that we believe is acceptable 
to all parties, that allows the recovery of attorneys' fees in criminal 
cases where the defendant is acquitted where the court finds that the 
prosecutor acted vexatiously, frivolously or in bad faith.
  For the Commerce Department, the conference report provides $4.3 
billion, a $450 million increase, most of which is related to the ramp-
up for the year 2000 decennial census.
  And on the 2000 census, we include provisions to provide for an 
expedited review by the courts on the legality and constitutionality of 
statistically adjusting the 2000 census. There is a legitimate 
question. I firmly and strongly believe that the Constitution requires 
an actual enumeration. Others in this Chamber, as honestly as me, 
believe to the contrary.
  We will let the courts decide that, and only they can decide it. They 
should have decided it in my judgment long ago, as members of the 
subcommittee requested. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] and 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] I think in times past have thought 
the same.
  We also require the administration to plan for an actual head count 
in the 2000 census and to test that plan in the 1998 dress rehearsal. 
And we commission an 8-person bipartisan census monitoring board to 
oversee the whole process from the inside, so that everyone can be 
assured that it is being done in the proper way.
  We also provide $390 million for the decennial census, $35 million 
more than the President's request, an increase of $305 million over 
current spending. There can be no question of our willingness to spend 
what it takes for the most accurate census possible.
  For the international programs in the bill--State Department 
operations, the U.S. Information Agency, the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency--for all practical purposes, the bill level-funds 
them at $5 billion. A major new initiative is $35 million to fund the 
24-hour broadcasting service to China through Radio Free Asia and the 
Voice of America, an initiative proposed by the Speaker and endorsed by 
the President.
  For international organizations and peacekeeping, we provide $33 
million less than 1997. Within that reduced amount, $100 million is 
provided for United Nations arrearages, but only if an authorization 
bill passes and only if that authorization bill contains real and 
substantial reforms as a condition for release of the money.
  For Legal Services, we provide $283 million, the same level as 1997. 
The restrictions in last year's bill are retained, and added are new 
public disclosure requirements for grantees of the corporation.
  In summary, I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan], the ranking minority member. No chairman of any subcommittee 
has a more able ranking member than I do. The gentleman from West 
Virginia has provided leadership for the things he strongly believes 
in. He has been able to work with us in every respect in constructing a 
bill that is best for the Nation. I want to thank the gentleman from 
West Virginia personally and profusely for his hard work and loyal 
dedication.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], our 
committee chairman, without whose help we would not be here tonight. He 
has

[[Page H10920]]

been superb in helping us bring this bill through some really rocky 
shoals to this nice peaceful shore. And the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] the ranking minority member on the full committee, who has 
been helpful all the way through. And all the members of the 
subcommittee for their help and support.

  Most of all, I think I want to thank the staff, some of whom are in 
the room with me at this time. Others are absent from the room. But 
these are the people who really have stayed up all night, time and 
again. They were up all night last night reading this bill all the way 
through. The staff, we appreciate their dedication and their service 
beyond words. We could not do this without them. We appreciate them 
very much.
  This conference report shows the American people our commitment to 
continue our fight to make our streets safer and the future brighter 
for our children. I urge support for this conference agreement.

[[Page H10921]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.000



[[Page H10922]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.001



[[Page H10923]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.002



[[Page H10924]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.003



[[Page H10925]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.004



[[Page H10926]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.005



[[Page H10927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.006



[[Page H10928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.007



[[Page H10929]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TGRAPHICS/EH13NO97.008



[[Page H10930]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is honored, I think I am more relieved to 
be here finally, and not any more excited about being the last vehicle 
out of town than he is as everybody jumps on our bill. I want to 
commend the gentleman for his fine management of this bill and his 
dealing with all the appropriation issues all year. He has been 
extremely capable, as always.
  The gentleman from Kentucky is very gracious. He has allowed the 
minority to participate in the process fully, which the minority 
greatly appreciates. He has also been very adroit in his handling and 
compromising of the accounts that are under our jurisdiction as well 
as, particularly because we are the last vehicle out of town, as 
accommodating as he possibly can be to all of the authorizing requests 
that we have received in the last 2 weeks particularly. He has done an 
outstanding job, as he always does, and I am very grateful for the 
opportunity to cooperate with him as we move this bill forward.
  Likewise, I want to express appreciation to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has been extremely active and 
constructive in ensuring that our process moves forward at every step 
of the way.
  I would also like to extend a special thanks to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member, who has been 
tireless in giving needed attention to the details of not only this 
bill but particularly this bill, but what is really impressive, the 
detail that he gives to all 13 of our appropriations subcommittee 
bills. I am very personally appreciative for his help to me and his 
guidance. I thank the gentleman for the attention he has given to it. I 
know it has been tireless.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] are tremendous contributors to our subcommittee 
on the minority. I very much appreciate and enjoy working with these 
friends and colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hard work of all staff involved, 
particularly Sally Gaines and Liz Whyte of my personal staff, and Jim 
Kulikowski, Therese McAuliffe, Jennifer Millier, Mike Ringler and Jane 
Weisman of the committee staff, along with my sincere appreciation for 
all of the efforts of the minority appropriations staff, Mark Murray, 
David Reich and Pat Schleuter.
  Mr. Speaker, joining in much of the sentiment expressed by our 
chairman, my colleagues should be pleased with the core funding 
contained in this bill. The centerpiece of this bill, the defining 
characteristic of it, if you will, is law enforcement, which is 
robustly funded. The FBI enjoys a $136 million increase over last year 
in this bill; the Drug Enforcement Administration, a $134 million 
increase; the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a whopping $714 
million increase.
  The INS funding provides for 1,000 new Border Patrol and the 
equipment to support them. The COPS program, fully funded at $1.4 
billion, keeps us on track toward the President's promise to increase 
Federal funding for new policemen on the beat to the 100,000 number. 
The crime trust fund is increased by $356 million. The popular Byrne 
Grant program is robustly funded at $505 million. The Violence Against 
Women program is increased by $74 million. Juvenile crime prevention is 
$489 million, of which $239 is for prevention programs, which is an 
increase of $64 million. Legal services is increased in conference to 
$283 million.
  Overall, the Justice Department enjoys a $1.037 billion increase 
under this bill. State, USIA, Arms Control is an overall $5.17 billion, 
an increase of $100 million. The Judiciary enjoys a $200 million 
increase to $3.4 billion. The Commerce Department in this bill is 
increased $450 million to $4.3 billion. Of that, NOAA enjoys a $100 
million increase. ATP is funded at $192 million, $82 million in new 
grant money.
  The census, Mr. Speaker, is increased by $349 million in preparation 
for the very important decennial census. This report contains a very 
imperfect compromise admittedly regarding the inclusion of sampling in 
the census process. The best thing I can say is that the agreement 
assures that this time-sensitive process, planning for the 2000 census, 
can go forward incorporating the statistical technique of sampling, 
which all the experts say will that the 2000 census can be the most 
accurate in the history of the Nation.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Maloney], the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] and the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] all deserve our gratitude for 
the time and attention they have given to this issue. The gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] 
are students of it, and they have made insightful contributions to the 
democratic process as this process has moved forward. I appreciate 
their help.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. It is on 
balance an excellent bill, while containing several difficult but, on 
balance, satisfactory compromises.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] the very dynamic chairman of the full 
committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding this time to me, and I congratulate him for doing an 
outstanding job on a difficult bill. The gentleman from Kentucky is one 
of our best negotiators. He has hung tough to the very last minute, and 
I think that he will not want to hang so tough until the last minute 
the next time, but I appreciate the great work that he has done on this 
bill.
  I also want to pay tribute to the tremendous job by the gentleman 
from West Virginia, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, 
and to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority 
member of the full committee. They have been incredibly helpful in 
getting this bill through. I hope with their help that we will get it 
all the way through and that it will find its way through passage 
tonight and not at some later date.
  I also want to thank the staff. As the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] has pointed out, they worked all night last night, and many 
went without sleep for a couple of days in order to get this bill 
prepared for the floor. Frankly, they and all of the staff on the 
Committee on Appropriations have just been invaluable throughout this 
very difficult year. I thank them for their service.
  I would like to take this opportunity to just pose a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, to 
congratulate him for his work and just ask him what in his mind might 
happen to the floor schedule if in fact a motion to recommit were 
adopted or if in fact this bill failed to pass tonight.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. If a motion to recommit should pass, under the rules of 
the House, the bill would have to be reconferenced with the Senate, 
which means we would have to reconvene a conference with the Senate and 
bring the bill back at some future time.

                              {time}  2030

  Now I am told that that may be difficult to do, because I am told 
most of the Members of the other body are not present in town at this 
time, which means that we would have to, I guess, go to next week or 
some other time to bring the House back in session and try to pass a 
bill at that time.
  Now, if the bill fails tonight, by the same token, we have to 
reconference and come back at some future time, so we would be here 
next week.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to be absolutely clear. If 
Members think for some reason that it might be a good idea to vote for 
the motion to recommit and they happen to be in the majority, or, in 
the alternative, if they were to vote against the bill and they were to 
find themselves in the majority, and the bill for any reason were to be 
defeated tonight, the gentleman is absolutely correct, we could not 
convene a conference tomorrow. We could only convene a conference when 
the Members of both bodies could be accumulated some time

[[Page H10931]]

next week or some time later on this year, and we would have to go 
through an additional extended continuing resolution. We would risk the 
possibility of the closure of the State Department, the Commerce 
Department, the Justice Department.
  I just caution Members, if in fact they are considering not 
supporting this bill or supporting the motion to recommit, it would be 
a bad idea. Let us get this bill passed, and let us put it to bed and 
say good night to the first session of the 105th Congress.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], a very valuable member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I certainly would like to add my comments of congratulations 
to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the 
committee for the fine work that they have done. I think most Members 
realize that in this conference process it did not follow the 
traditional process, and I think under all the circumstances they have 
done an excellent job.
  I rise in full support of the conference committee, and I certainly 
identify with the gentlemen and the ladies of the House who have 
expressed clear displeasure with the census language in this bill. If 
this was an up and down vote on census language, I would not be voting 
for it. But the truth of the matter is that no matter what we say about 
this reprehensible language, it does not prohibit sampling, statistical 
sampling, in the pilot program, nor does it prohibit it being used in 
the year 2000 but, rather, it leaves that fight to be fought another 
day.
  The truth of the matter is that there are people who want an accurate 
count in the House and then there are people that want an accurate 
count. How do we count 270 million people in our country? Some would 
suggest it is door to door. I doubt that any of my colleagues really 
believe that.
  If my colleagues look at the Congressional Record, if they read the 
newspapers and if they listen to the 1 minutes, we use statistical data 
to illustrate our point. Most of that comes from statistical sampling, 
not door-to-door searches.
  But more importantly, we have to look at what this bill does do, and 
for those who are interested in 245(I), it extends past the signing of 
the bill for 60 days the opportunity for people to get the I-130 forms. 
For those who are interested in legal services, it has $30 million more 
than this House provided. It is at a figure of $283 million. For those 
who are interested in crime prevention programs, it has $64 million 
above last year's programs. And for those who are interested in the 
Ninth Circuit in California, it sets up a reasonable way to take an 
objective approach to how we divide the Ninth Circuit Court up.
  Mr. Speaker, it is for all those reasons that it does not prohibit 
the use of statistical sampling, that it has many good programs for law 
enforcement as well as social programs, that I urge each Member to vote 
aye on the conference report.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Latham], a very distinguished, hard-working member of our 
subcommittee who has contributed much to our cause here.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky, for all of his very hard work, and the ranking 
member that did such a great job, and I think the Members should be 
aware that we would not have any problems on this bill if it were not 
for extraneous provisions that were brought in.
  This committee has worked very, very hard and on a bipartisan basis 
to get a very good bill to the floor, and I too, would like to commend 
the staff for doing a tremendous job. It has been a real pleasure in my 
first year on the subcommittee to work with such a professional staff, 
and they have done a great job.
  Just some of the provisions in the bill and reasons I think that all 
Members should strongly support this bill: When we talk about the COPS 
Program, it does continue the funding at $1.4 billion for the 100,000 
new police officers on the street. But very important to me is the fact 
that it increases from 10 to 20 percent the COPS More Program.
  Many of the communities in my district cannot afford the COPS Program 
to put additional officers on the force and then 3 years later have to 
take over the funding. They just simply do not have it in their budget. 
So the COPS More Program is extremely important, that they can buy 
technology and equipment that they so desperately need.
  The COPS Program also establishes four innovative new programs. There 
is $35 million for law enforcement technology grants, $35 million for 
drug enforcement grants, $34 million for methamphetamine initiatives, 
which is a problem that has exploded in the upper Midwest and in Iowa 
in my district; also, $1 million for police recruitment programs.
  In the Office of the Justice programs, which are increased from $118 
to $173 million, it includes a very important provision. There is $25 
million for a new national sex offender registry, extremely important, 
I think, in this day and age.
  As far as the State and local law enforcement assistance, it is 
increased dramatically, about $500 million, the highest level ever on 
the Byrne grants, and the Weed & Seed programs establish a new $250 
million juvenile crime block grant and increases by $75 million the 
Violence Against Women grants, which is up to $271 million. Again, that 
is increased by $75 million. There is $720 million for State prison 
grants; when we talked about truth-in-sentencing, very, very important.
  As far as funding for the INS, that is increased from $2.1 to about 
$2.5 billion, and that includes funding for improved INS fingerprinting 
equipment, requires fingerprinting services must be conducted by INS 
agents or law enforcement agents. If my colleagues remember, last year, 
we had testimony that Pookie's Bar & Grill in California was doing 
fingerprinting for us, paid by the tax dollars to fingerprint potential 
U.S. citizens.
  And it also guarantees that citizenship cannot be granted without a 
full and completed FBI background check, and the reason for this, my 
colleagues, is in the rush last year to have more citizens register to 
vote, especially in California, there were 186,000 people who were 
given citizenship last year without an FBI background check.
  By any standard, when we talked about sampling, about 20 percent of 
those people normally are convicted felons. That means, in a 
conservative way, there are over 30,000 convicted felons who are given 
citizenship. This will put a stop to that, and I urge support of this 
bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill, and I 
personally want to thank the Chair and the ranking member and the 
subcommittee and the House for considering a number of issues critical 
for California in a favorable light.
  I am unhappy about the Census language, but I will still support the 
bill for the reasons later to be explained by the gentleman from Ohio.
  But what I would like the other party to explain to me is the strange 
logic by which, when they do not get the language they want, the Mexico 
City language on family planning programs abroad, they appropriate the 
money for family planning, and then, to retaliate for not getting that 
language, they take their highest priority for the last 3 years, the 
reform of the international relations bureaucracy, and kill it. They 
take their desire to leverage lower assessments in New York at the U.N. 
through very well calibrated conditions on arrearages and destroy it, 
and then risk all the consequences of financial instability that come 
from the currency fluctuations by destroying the IMF new borrowing 
authority. What a bizarre and strange reaction when they provide and 
appropriate the family planning funds which cause them to get so angry 
and strike out after all these things.
  I support the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to recommit, and I 
urge the body to do so.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney], who has provided such leadership for our 
caucus on this issue.

[[Page H10932]]

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, but 
first I would like to thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Shays], and the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], for all their help on the Census issue.
  And to the rest of my colleagues, if they believe in a fair and 
accurate Census, they simply cannot vote for this bill. Getting a fair 
and accurate count is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. If my 
colleagues are not counted, they are not represented. If they are not 
counted, they are not part of the Federal funding formulas.
  This deal, as many have said, funding is provided for statistical 
sampling through September of 1998, yet at the same time it stacks the 
deck against achieving it by helping to build a case for those who plan 
to kill it in 1999. And the Speaker has vowed to kill the sampling 
issue in 1999.
  This legislation aids this plan by putting into place a campaign to 
smear it. First the deal allows opponents to file multiple lawsuits to 
tie the Census up in court. The deal also allows the Speaker, using the 
House general counsel, to sue on behalf of the House to block sampling. 
In other words, the Speaker, representing the viewpoint of the RNC, 
will be using taxpayers' funds to block sampling.
  Second, it asks the bureau to run two censuses at once; and, thirdly, 
it confuses the public by issuing four sets of numbers instead of just 
one. The opposition simply does not want to count our Nation's poor in 
our rural and our urban areas.
  If this legislation becomes law, we are sending a message that we are 
willing to purposefully disenfranchise millions of Americans in the 
name of politics; in other words, we are willing to count them out of 
democracy. The Republican leadership is on record over and over again 
in their design to kill sampling. This language gives them the tools 
for the execution either by a thousand cuts in the courts or through 
spreading confusion about the results.
  We cannot allow this to happen. I urge a no vote against the 
Commerce-Justice-State conference report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)

                              {time}  2045

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, what I really wanted to come 
to this floor tonight for was to show my appreciation for the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] for work well done. Though my comments will criticize what we 
have secured with respect to census, I mean what I say with respect to 
the work that you gentlemen have done, and I thank you for that.
  Particularly I thank you for working with me on the Prairie View A&M 
Justice Center, and as well working to curb pornography on the Internet 
for our children, developing a study by the Justice Department to find 
ways to prevent such horrible activities to be subjected to the 
Internet and for our children to see.
  I need, however, to address this important and crucial issue which we 
hope we will find a solution for, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer] and certainly the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] 
and the caucuses that worked on this issue.
  But this census process will not work. This future litigation by the 
Speaker of the House will not work, as it proves to threaten sampling. 
This public relations campaign, using the monitoring board and a new 
House subcommittee just for census, shows us that this Congress is not 
serious about counting every American.
  I ask my friends and colleagues to consider opposing this bill 
because of the concerns we have raised. I hope we can solve this 
problem, and have a true counting and a true census.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to share my concerns regarding the 
Conference Report on H.R. 2267, the Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary Appropriations bill.
  The first of these concerns involves the failure of this Conference 
Report to provide protection to illegal immigrants who are the victims 
of domestic violence. The Conference Report to H.R. 2267 provides that 
only those immigrants who have 245(i) applications for permanent legal 
status pending at the time of the bill's enactment, may stay in the 
United States. In refusing to permanently extend 245(i) for most 
immigrants, the Conference Report makes one concession--it provides 
permanent extension of 245(i) for those immigrants holding employment-
based visas. It makes no exception for battered illegal immigrants. In 
so doing, the Conference Report undermines the strides to protect 
battered immigrants made in the Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'').
  The Violence Against Women Act exempts battered immigrant women and 
their children from the three to ten year inadmissibility bars that 
apply to other illegal immigrants. These provisions were written to 
provide a way out of violent relationships for battered women and 
children abused by their U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident 
spouses and parents. These provisions were included in VAWA in an 
effort to free battered immigrants to seek protection for themselves 
and their children from ongoing abuse and to allow them to cooperate in 
the criminal prosecution of their abusers.
  The vast majority of battered immigrant women who qualify for 
protection under VAWA are in the United States in undocumented status 
because their citizen and lawful permanent resident spouses or parents 
have had control over their immigration status. These spouses also 
often control what information their abuse victims receive and with 
whom they associate.
  Because the Conference Report does not provide permanent extension of 
245(i) to battered immigrants, many of these women will be required to 
return to their home countries to obtain their green cards. All 
battered women who apply for relief under VAWA, however, must prove 
that their deportation will cause extreme hardship to themselves or 
their children. In requiring those women to return to the very country 
that INS agrees poses them a danger as the only means to obtain their 
permanent residency is dangerous and illogical.
  Additionally, most battered immigrant women will have difficulty 
raising the funds to travel abroad to obtain their permanent residency. 
Many more will be required to travel to countries that cannot or will 
not protect them from their abusers, from their abuser's family or from 
the social ostracization that often accompanies women who publicly 
challenge abuse. Many victims will violate family court custody orders 
if they travel abroad or leave the jurisdiction where the court order 
was issued. Finally, many will be unable to make safe child care 
arrangements for their children if they are required to travel abroad 
or else they will have to take their children with them. Battered 
immigrant women should not have to be faced with leaving their children 
with an abuser or in a situation in which the children cannot be 
adequately protected from the abuser or possibly being charged with 
international kidnapping. Faced with these obstacles, many battered 
immigrants will choose to stay with their abusers.
  It is important that both the battered immigrant and her children be 
able to obtain lawful permanent residency status under VAWA without 
interruption in the support, counseling, and legal relief they are 
receiving to help them and their children address the consequences of 
the violence. For VAWA's immigration provisions to offer victims of 
domestic violence the intended protection, battered women must be able 
to obtain their permanent residency without leaving the country 
regardless of when they file their self-petition.
  The second area of concern that I would like to raise with respect to 
the Conference report on H.R. 2267, is the compromise reached on the 
census provisions. The revised language in the Conference Report 
regarding the census states that sampling poses the risk of an 
inaccurate census which is the very opposite of what is true.

  The agreement on the Conference Report also allows the opponents of 
sampling to file suit in any and all courts in the country. If any one 
of those courts issues an injunction against the use of sampling it 
would take so long to clear up that the use of sampling in any ``dress 
rehearsal'' would effectively be blocked. If there is no sampling in 
the dress rehearsal, there will be no sampling in the census which 
means that the chance for an accurate census will be lost.
  The Conference language regarding the census calls for the Census 
Bureau to issue several sets of census counts for both the dress 
rehearsal and the census. This would be confusing to the public and 
create chaos in the redistricting process. Redistricting experts 
dislike having multiple numbers so much that two years ago the National 
Conference of State Legislators passed a resolution calling for a one-
number census in 2000.
  Next I would like to discuss areas of the Conference Report that I am 
sure have not drawn the attention of many of my colleagues, but for 
which I believe the Conferees deserve my congratulations.

[[Page H10933]]

  I worked with my colleagues during the appropriations process in an 
effort to find funding in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations 
bill for the establishment of a National Center for the Study and 
Prevention of Juvenile Crime and Delinquency at Prairie View A&M 
University, located outside of Houston, Texas. While we were not 
successful in getting such funding into the House version of the 
Commerce-Justice-State bill, the Senate included in its version of this 
bill, $500,000 for the establishment of the Prairie View Center. 
Although I was disappointed that this specific line item did not 
survive in the Conference report, I am pleased that the Report requires 
OJJDP to carefully review Prairie View's grant application.
  The National Center would fill some very important functions: (1) 
conducting academic programs, including continuing education and 
training for professionals in the juvenile justice field; (2) 
conducting policy research; and (3) developing and assisting with 
community outreach programs focused on the prevention of juvenile 
violence, crime, drug use, and gang-related activities.
  Across America, violent crime committed by and against juveniles is a 
national crisis that threatens the safety and security of communities, 
as well as the future of our children. According to a recently released 
FBI report on Crime in the United States, in 1995, law enforcement 
agencies made an estimated 2.7 million arrests of persons under 18.
  Studies show that prevention is far more cost-effective than 
incarceration in reducing the rates of juvenile crime. A study by the 
Rand Corporation, titled Diverting Children from a Life of Crime, 
Measuring Costs and Benefits, is the most recent comprehensive study 
done in this area. It is clear that juvenile crime and violence can be 
reduced and prevented, but doing so will require a long-term vigorous 
investment. The Rand study determined that early intervention programs 
can prevent as many as 250 crimes per $1 million spent. In contrast, 
the report said investing the same amount in prisons would prevent only 
60 crimes a year.

  Children hurting children on the streets of our nation is costly for 
the moral fabric of our society and the burden on our government. 
Public safety is now becoming one of the most significant factors 
influencing the cost of state and local governments. We can begin to 
bring those costs down and make both short term and long term positive 
differences in the lives of our young people by targeting the 
prevention of juvenile crime.
  In Texas, the Historically Black Colleges and Universities are 
forging ahead. The Juvenile Justice Center at Prairie View A&M 
University will be come a state and national resource. It will perform 
a vital collaborative role by focusing on measures that target the 
prevention of juvenile violence, crime delinquency and disorder. The 
University will provide comprehensive teaching, research and public 
service programs. There is no single answer to this problem, but this 
Center will be a start to bridging the programs that work for the state 
of Texas and other states.
  I thank the Conferees for their support of this important Center.
  Finally, I am gratified that an amendment which I offered before on 
the floor of the House and agreed to has been included in the 
Conference Report for Commerce-Justice-State. The language in the 
conference report states that the Department of Justice should consult 
with the National Academy of Sciences to review computer-based 
technologies and other approaches that could help to restrict the 
availability to children of pornographic images through the Internet 
and on-line services.
  Unfortunately, this language does not go far enough; my original 
amendment would have provided for the identification of methods that 
would locate illegal pornographic images with the goal of criminally 
prosecuting those purveyors of such pornographic images to children. 
The goal of my amendment was to create a pool of understandings 
regarding the technological capabilities currently available for 
identifying digitized pornographic images stored on a computer, 
network, or other computer communication mediums by the use of software 
or other computer technologies.
  The funding for this amendment would have come from funds otherwise 
appropriated; therefore revenue neutral to the Department of Justice, 
which should not exceed $750,000.
  I would like strongly urge the Department of Justice to pay attention 
to the intent of the Amendment when implementing this section of the 
conference report.
  I would like to also ask that Members of the House join me in support 
of the original intent of the amendment to help eliminate the growing 
threat of pornographic images that our children who use the technology 
must face. This is an opportunity for us to help all of our nation's 
children have a safer future.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my 
agreement with the gentleman from California on the importance of 
putting back in here important international financial material. But 
secondly, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio for his work 
on the census and say that I plan to vote for this bill.
  I try very hard to avoid cliches, but it is much too late in the 
session to think fresh, so I am going to have to use one. I think some 
of my good friends here are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of 
victory. The problem I and others had with the original census language 
was that it said we could not go forward with the sampling process 
until the Supreme Court had said it was okay. That would have killed 
it. That is not in the bill.
  We now have parallel processes. We have the sampling going forward, 
and we have the court process. I disagree with my friends who say, oh, 
allowing the court process to go forward kills sampling.
  I think sampling is constitutional. I do not think the Supreme Court 
is going to find it unconstitutional. Indeed, I am sceptical that the 
Supreme Court, given its own rules on ripeness and standing, will even 
decide this at all.
  So what we have is a situation where previously sampling could not go 
forward until the Supreme Court acted, and we knew the Supreme Court 
was not going to be able to act because of its own doctrines, and now 
we have a situation where it can go forward.
  I do not want to argue this too strongly, because I do not want to 
lose you any votes on this side, but the fact is the obstacle to census 
sampling that existed previously has been dissolved. Now we have been 
told, well, there will be a subcommittee that will propagandize.
  I have to be honest with you, I hope I am not being unduly modest 
when I say I do not think most people pay too much attention to our 
subcommittees. They can dance and sing and whistle, and we can still go 
ahead with it. Yes, it may have to face a court test, but that is to be 
done.
  In fact, I want to congratulate the Republicans. This is one more 
example of their belief in judicial activism, and I want to salute the 
Republican conversion to the notion that when there are important 
decisions that are to be made, we should ask some unelected, life-
tenured Federal judges to arbitrate them for us. I think that is 
appropriate, as long as the work is not held up until then. So I think 
we have the best of both worlds.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal 
Justice, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hastert.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I first want to 
congratulate him for his hard work, and certainly the gentleman from 
West Virginia, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], who has 
worked on this diligently as well. I wanted to talk a minute about the 
census.
  There were some accusations, and I probably agree with my good friend 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. We need to go forward. We need to have 
transparency in the system, and if there is an issue of whether this is 
constitutional or not constitutional, we probably ought to let the 
Supreme Court decide that issue. If there is an issue whether this is 
statutorily legal to do or not statutorily legal to do, we probably 
ought to let a court decide that.
  But in the meantime, let me just say a couple things about 
transparency. Yes, there is going to be, first, a commission that looks 
at numbers, and, you know, it is not terrible to have four numbers, the 
four numbers in counting when you actually go out and count people and 
find out what the number is when you get counting and what the number 
is when you get done adjusting, which there is not an adjustment. So 
the number in counting, Number 1, will be the same as number 2.
  Actually, when you get into sampling, which what you have is that you 
have a number when you get done, and that number will be X, and then it 
will be X plus or X minus something else, when you get done sampling. 
When you

[[Page H10934]]

do that census block by census block, people ought to be able to see 
what you do.
  Whether you take population away from this precinct and you add 
population to that precinct, there ought to be a transparency about 
what this guessing business is all about. When the bureaucrats get done 
guessing what the population should be, because it meets their 
parameters of what they guessed it should be in the first place, there 
is a transparency, we can look at sampling, see if sampling is 
worthwhile, whether it has some value, whether it is constitutional, 
whether it is legal, and we will look at enumeration, which the 
Constitution talks about enumeration, counting, one by one. It has been 
going on in this country for 230-some years. It was prescribed by the 
forefathers of this country, and I think it is probably something we 
ought to continue to take a very serious look at.
  I just have to tell my friends there is one government agency that 
basically goes door to door every day. They basically know how many 
people are in each house. It is called the Postal Service. If we need 
to do an extraordinary job of census, then maybe we could hire some 
people in the Postal Service on weekends on their time off. They can 
knock on doors. They know who lives in those houses.
  Let us do the job that the Constitution says we should do. Let us 
move forward, let us do the census block, census block by census block, 
by geographical area by geographical area and put the numbers in there.
  The test that was done in 1995 says there was a plus or minus 35 
percent error rate when you get down to the lowest geographical area, 
which is usually the census block. If there is 100 people that live in 
a census block, we do not want to guess whether there are 65 people 
there or 135 people.
  Let us get the numbers straight. Let us do it the way it is supposed 
to be done and pass this bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for 
yielding me this time.
  Sampling will clearly be one of the most important issues that we 
confront in the next session of Congress that is being addressed in 
this bill. I am going to support this bill, and I, too, congratulate 
the chairman and the ranking member for accomplishing a very difficult 
task.
  I rise briefly, however, to call the attention to what the Speaker of 
the House said just a few years ago. I want to read it:
  I respectfully request that the census numbers for the State of 
Georgia be readjusted, that is after counting, I tell my friend, from 
door to door, to reflect the accurate population of the State so as to 
include the over 300,000 which were previously not included.
  That is in the door-to-door count, according to the Speaker.
  Based on available information, without an adjustment to compensate 
for the undercount, minorities in Georgia could lose two State Senate 
seats and four to five House seats. As a result of conversations with 
black legislators, it is my understanding that they have not only 
concurred with this request, but stated that they believe it is 
required under the Voting Rights Act.
  Representative Newt Gingrich sent that to Bob Mosbacher, then 
Secretary of Commerce, with respect to sampling.
  We are not going to argue situational ethics, I hope. If sampling was 
good then in this letter from Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1991 to 
Secretary Mosbacher, it is good today.
  Now, my friends, let me tell you, there was a similar letter, and I 
will not read it, you can read it for yourself, from the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Parker], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Clay Shaw], in a letter to Bill Clinton 
in 1994.
  Barbara Bryant, who was the head of the census under George Bush, 
clearly says, in the long run our Nation is best served by accuracy. 
Sample surveys to estimate those who will not or cannot be counted in 
the 2000 census after the Census Bureau has made every reasonable and 
good faith effort to voluntarily enumerate will increase the accuracy 
of the census.
  My friends, again, let us not be into situational ethics. Let us not 
be into which side gains politically. The Speaker thought in 1991 
perhaps it served his political interest. But I also believe he said 
and believed that that was the accurate way to count. Let us not 
deviate from that for the situational effects that it may have.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a very active and 
effective member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for the time.
  I hope the Members of the House will support this conference report. 
It is basically a very good piece of work. In that regard, I want to 
thank our distinguished chairman from Kentucky and the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the absolutely tireless work of a 
terrific staff in putting this all together. It is a good piece of 
work. Many areas, it is especially commendable to the Members.
  One I would like to point to in particular is the substantial funding 
base that is given to the Department of Commerce and its several 
important science and research activities under NOAA, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology.
  There are still some problems. I am particularly distressed at the 
counterproductive and, I think, very backward-looking restrictions that 
are included in this bill on the activities of the Legal Services 
Corporation and its grantees. There is some gratuitous language in here 
about the census. But make no mistake about that, the bottom line on 
the census is that it allows the sampling process to move forward, and 
my colleagues particularly on this side of the aisle that are concerned 
about that ought to welcome this breakthrough, as was so well explained 
by previous speakers.
  Finally, I hope the Members will support the motion to recommit that 
Mr. Obey intends to offer. As Mr. Berman earlier explained, I think it 
is absolutely critical that we make good on at least a modest down 
payment on our arrearage to the UN, especially at this crisis time when 
we have to count on our working relationship within that body to deal 
with the difficult situation in Iraq, as well, as was explained, the 
need for funding flexibility to the IMF to deal with currency problems.
  But the basic point here is a good conference report, worthy of 
Members' support.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1-3/4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California, Mr. Becerra, who has been extremely active 
on this issue and a leader of the Hispanic Caucus.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to speak during the rule, so I will try 
to be somewhat brief now on the actual bill.
  I think that the ranking member of the subcommittee, the ranking 
member of the full committee, the Chair of the subcommittee and the 
Chair of the full committee have done a tremendous job trying to pull 
together a bill that could get the majority support in this House 
necessary to pull this together and send it off to the President. I 
commend them for the work they have done. I think that those four 
individuals have worked sincerely to try to pull together something 
that could get the support of all of us.
  I must say that I continue to have the greatest of concerns with 
regard to the work on the census. I see no reason why we could not have 
sent this directly to the President and said, Mr. President, tell us 
what the experts say we should do with regard to a count of the 
citizens and the residents of this country when it comes to the year 
2000.

                              {time}  2100

  Let us not inject politics into this, and let us go straight with 
what the experts say would be best to do for this country, because we 
know in the past we have left many Americans uncounted.
  We had an opportunity to do that, but we failed. We failed miserably 
because the politics got in the way, and this legislation is apparently 
the best we could expect. The best we could expect says that we will 
have lawsuit

[[Page H10935]]

after lawsuit filed to try to stop statistical sampling, even though 
expert after expert has said that is the only way to get an accurate 
count of America.
  Yet we stand here saying, this is what the President must sign. But 
in 16 or 17 minutes we will have to revisit this, because we do not 
have funding for a full dress rehearsal as sampling in the end to take 
place in the census. That is wrong, and that is why people should vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula], the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Interior, but a very able, hard-working member of this subcommittee.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to commend the chairman, the staff and the ranking 
minority member for doing a good job. I strongly urge support of this 
bill.
  We have heard a lot of speeches about the big picture tonight; I want 
to talk about the little picture with a big potential.
  1998 is the International Year of the Ocean, and we have not paid 
enough attention to the ocean in terms of its impact on human life. One 
of the exciting things provided for in here, subsidies, $1.5 million 
for the Jason Foundation for Education. What the Jason Foundation will 
do is translate underwater research into the Internet, which means that 
school students and adults around the world will be able to interact 
with these researchers and learn more about our oceans and about what 
is being produced by the research that is taking place, in large part 
because it is the Year of the Ocean.
  This is an exciting concept. I think we barely scratch the surface. 
What it means is that when it comes to fruition, that students will be 
able to interact with people at the National Gallery, at the 
Smithsonian, at the Kennedy Center, at colleges throughout the United 
States.
  I saw this in action in my district where the Jason Foundation had a 
biologist at Yosemite talking about terminals, and the students in 
Wooster, Ohio could ask questions of this biologist and he could 
respond. It really worked out well, and it is an exciting concept. It 
is part of this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say very briefly in response to my good 
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], we were engaged in 
a very difficult negotiation with the White House over the last several 
days, and in the end we gave half a loaf on the Mexico City policy 
which separates abortion from family planning. We said that foreign 
nongovernmental organizations would be precluded, those that are 
subsidized by the U.S. Government, would no longer be able to lobby in 
foreign capitals to topple their pro-life laws. It seems to me this was 
a very modest proposal. This was rejected.
  The good news for the pro-life said that the Speaker of the House and 
the majority leader have given their solemn word that the IMF issue and 
arrearages payments, and those arrearages payments are in dispute, 
there are all different, conflicting numbers as to what they should be, 
that those three issues are intertwined and they will move forward 
together or they will not move forward at all.
  We have offered the White House a true compromise; they have rejected 
it at this point. My hope is that in the spirit of comity, I would hope 
that we could move to a real compromise on this, and then we could work 
in partnership on all three of these issues.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], who has worked tirelessly on all of our 13 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no objection to the job done 
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] or the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. I think they have been imminently reasonable. 
I think they have produced a good product in what is in the bill. I 
certainly do not have any objections to the job done by the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. I think he has done a very fine job. 
But I have to say my concern is what is not in the bill.
  As my colleagues know, an agreement was made by the Republican Party, 
just referred to by the previous speaker to, for the moment, concede on 
their views on Mexico City and family planning issues on the fast track 
bill. In retaliation for that, for that concession, the decision was 
made to strike the State Department reauthorization language, to strike 
the currency stabilization fund, and to strike the U.N. arrearage 
authority.
  I believe that is an extremely shortsighted and irresponsible 
decision, and I believe that decision significantly damages United 
States interests in two ways: It does not punish Bill Clinton, it 
punishes the country. It damages us in two ways because, first of all, 
it weakens our ability to develop consensus within the United Nations 
in building a proactive foreign policy against Saddam Hussein. It also 
undercuts the resources necessary to deal with the currency 
fluctuations and instability which we have seen throughout Asia and 
Latin America that could very well have incredibly serious effects on 
our own economy.
  Now, the response of the House leadership on this matter I find most 
troubling. The Speaker sent a letter to the President today which says, 
``With the challenge of Iraqi defiance against the world community and 
the importance of the United Nations Security Council in responding to 
that challenge, the U.S. must continue to play a central role in the 
U.N.'' It says, ``With the turmoil in international markets, it is 
clearly prudent for the Secretary of the Treasury to seek additional 
resources.''
  And yet, this bill tonight withholds those resources until the 
President capitulates on a totally unrelated matter.
  The letter then goes on to say, ``We do not believe that our 
disagreement over abortion should block action on national security 
issues.'' But then my colleagues proceed to block them anyway.
  I have infinite respect for the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
and others who share his view on abortion policy; I share some of those 
same views. But the Constitution defines how one is supposed to win. In 
order to win on an issue, one needs to have a majority in both Houses 
or the signature of the President. If one does not have the signature 
of the President, then one needs two-thirds in both Houses. With all 
due respect, the only majority that the gentleman has at this moment is 
the majority in one House.
  Now, what he is trying to do is to exercise leverage in order to 
expand that majority by holding other proposals hostage. Individual 
Members have a right to try that, but it is an obligation of leadership 
to say no when that puts in jeopardy severe and important interests of 
the United States. It is reckless for the leadership of this House to 
do otherwise.
  Secretary Albright just called me. She was about to step on a plane 
going to the Middle East to try to build a tighter alliance to deal 
with Saddam Hussein. She said, ``I need those extra resources.''
  I am going to be offering a motion to recommit, a straight motion to 
recommit, in order to give this committee an opportunity to put back 
into this bill the authority that they need for the $100 million in 
U.N. arrearages for the first year of the 3-year plan, and to also put 
into the bill the authority we need for currency stabilization. There 
is no problem in the Senate with that. The only group that seems to 
have any real problem with it is the House leadership.

  It seems to me that the only way to meet our responsibilities, unless 
we want to walk out of here for three months and risk seeing a further 
unraveling of the currency markets and the security markets around the 
world, unless we want to risk seeing that, it seems to me we have an 
obligation tonight to provide those resources. That is what I will 
attempt to do by offering the motion to recommit, and I urge every 
single Member to support that motion. Without it, Congress will be

[[Page H10936]]

committing one of the most remarkably irresponsible abdications of 
responsibility that I have seen in all of the years that I have served 
in Congress.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  I just want to point out that in two separate packages we tried to 
put together an opportunity to pay the U.N. arrearages, for the IMF 
funding, for the State Department reauthorization, and yes, coupled 
with the promise that the President would not continue to use 
taxpayers' funds to lobby to use abortion as a family planning tool. It 
was a simple proposal. They did not want that.
  So then we offered to put these together with all of the three 
appropriations bills that have just passed the House in the last two 
days. The President said he would veto it, the Senate said that they 
would filibuster it, and the Members of the other side in the minority 
said they were against it.
  Now, look, this place is a place of compromise. Let us not say that 
we have held anybody hostage. The gentleman from New Jersey was very 
reasonable. He reduced his demands to simply say that he will not use 
taxpayers' funds to advocate abortion abroad as a family planning tool. 
That is not radical. The President refused it, and he refused to go 
along with this offer.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Chairman and 
the ranking member for their yeoman's work in crafting this conference 
report and bringing this legislation to the floor. This bill has a 
number of important provisions which will advance and promote the 
national interests. I am going to cite just some of them briefly.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers], chairman of the subcommittee, for his work to fund the 
programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST is 
the Nation's oldest Federal laboratory, established by Congress in 
1901, and its mission is to promote economic growth by working with 
industry to develop and apply technology, measurements and standards.
  NIST currently has the need for repair and replacement of some of the 
critical laboratories. It has a maintenance backlog of over $300 
million, and in addition, NIST requires new laboratory space. It must 
construct an advanced measurement laboratory. It is part of the funding 
appropriated for NIST. This bill includes $95 million for construction, 
renovation and maintenance for NIST laboratories. I applaud that.
  In addition, it includes money for the core programs at NIST known as 
Scientific and Technical Research and Services programs, which include 
very important research conducted in its laboratories. The total is 
equivalent to the Senate-passed bill, $6 million below the amount 
originally authorized by the Committee on Science and appropriated by 
the House, but I applaud it.
  Also, the bill includes $192.5 million for the advanced technology 
program; $113.5 million for the manufacturing extension program; $150 
million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which 
actually is $150 million more than what the House had asked for.
  Let me comment just briefly on the compromise on 245(i) of the 
Immigration Act. I think it is very important. I am glad it was done. 
It should include the opportunity for victims of domestic violence to 
be accorded that treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Chairman and ranking member 
for their yeoman's work in crafting this conference report and bringing 
this legislation to the floor. The conference report on H.R. 2267, the 
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, contains a number of 
important provisions which will advance and promote the national 
interest.
  First, I thank Chairman Rogers for his work to fund the programs of 
National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST].
  NIST is the Nation's oldest Federal laboratory. It was established by 
Congress in 1901, as the National Bureau of Standards [NBS], and 
subsequently renamed NIST. As part of the Department of Commerce, 
NIST's mission is to promote economic growth by working with industry 
to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards. As the 
Nation's arbiter of standards, NIST enables our Nation's businesses to 
engage each other in commerce and participate in the global 
marketplace.
  The precise measurements required for establishing standards 
associated with today's increasingly complex technologies require NIST 
laboratories to maintain the most sophisticated equipment and most 
talented scientists in the world. NIST's infrastructure, however, is 
failing and in need of repair and replacement.
  NIST currently has a maintenance backlog of over $300 million. In 
addition, NIST requires new laboratory space that includes a higher 
level of environmental control (control of both vibration and air 
quality) than can be achieved through the retrofitting of any of its 
existing facilities. In order to meet this pressing need, NIST must 
construct an Advanced Measurement Laboratory [AML].
  As part of the funding appropriated for NIST, H.R. 2267 includes $95 
million for construction, renovation and maintenance for NIST's 
laboratories. This funding level is slightly below the $111 million 
appropriated by the House, but well above the $16 million recommended 
by the Senate. The total should be sufficient to begin funding the 
construction of the AML, while at the same time allowing NIST to 
address some of its critical maintenance needs.
  In addition, H.R. 2267 includes $276.9 million for NIST core 
programs, known as the Scientific and Technical Research and Services 
[STRS] programs, which include the important research conducted by its 
laboratories. This total is equivalent to the Senate passed bill and $6 
million below the amount originally authorized by the Science Committee 
and appropriated by the House. While I would have preferred the House 
funding level, I understand the funding constraints under which the 
House and Senate Conferees had to operate.
  The bill also includes $192.5 million for the Advanced Technology 
Program [ATP] and $113.5 million for the Manufacturing Extention 
Partnership [MEP] program. This level splits the difference between the 
House authorization and appropriation levels and the Senate 
appropriation for ATP. It seems to be a good compromise, and I applaud 
the House and Senate conferees for coming to an equitable conclusion on 
ATP and including the higher total for MEP.
  I am pleased with the increase in funding for the National Oceanic 
and Atmosphere Administration--about $150 million more than the House 
bill.
  I also want to recognize the compromise which was reached on section 
245i of the immigration act. The expiration of this provision would 
have adversely and unfairly affected a number of families and 
businesses in my district. However, I am sorely disappointed that the 
conferees did not include the battered women immigrants provisions of 
the Violence Against Women Act in this compromise. The conferees 
demonstrated great compassion in extending the provisions of 245i until 
the beginning of next year; immigrants who are victims of domestic 
violence should be accorded the same compassionate treatment.

  I am also disappointed that we have not yet found a way to repay our 
arrearages to the United Nations. Especially at a time when we are 
counting on the U.N. to maintain our position on Iraqi weapons 
inspections, continued delay of our debt repayment is, to say the 
least, embarassing.
  I want to congratulate the conferees for the funding levels which 
were agreed to on the Legal Services Corporation. This funding is 
critical to assisting vulnerable people in our society. Women and 
children are among the vulnerable who without assistance often find 
themselves in abusive situations that they cannot control. The impact 
of these situations is significant and may result in homelessness and 
the loss of necessary financial resources for food, maintenance, and 
health care. In addition, LSC has been invaluable in allowing 
impoverished people to access the judicial system in support of their 
just claims. Much of their caseload, and almost half of the caseload in 
Maryland, deals with such issues as divorce, child custody, and 
domestic violence.
  As with many eleventh hour compromises, this bill's Census provisions 
aren't perfect, but they have significantly improved thanks to the 
diligent work of many of my colleagues and the Administration.
  While I am concerned that this compromise delays the decision of 
whether to use sampling in Census 2000 until 1999, I am pleased that, 
unlike the original bill, it does not significantly hinder the Bureau's 
critical work in preparation for Census 2000.
  The failure of the 1990 Census, the GAO report on sampling, and the 
National Academy of Science's support of sampling should be more than 
enough evidence that we need to

[[Page H10937]]

use sampling to get the most accurate count possible in 2000, but a 
majority of my colleagues are not convinced. This decision allows for 
expedited court review of the constitutionality of sampling and it sets 
up a balanced monitoring board to carefully review the Census Bureau's 
plans.
  This compromise allows the Census Bureau to test sampling in one of 
the three Spring dress rehearsal sites, the urban site in Sacramento, 
CA. Furthermore, this decision will not hinder the necessary 
preparation of the Long Form, the only reliable source of national data 
about who we are as a nation.
  Finally, the agreement includes a $74 million increase for Violence 
Against Women Grants. While this bill's funding is $35 million less 
than the House bill, it is still $22 million more than the 
administration request and $7 million more than the Senate level of 
funding. This program provides funding to law enforcement agencies to 
encourage arrests in domestic violence cases and to train local 
prosecutors in the handling of crimes of domestic violence.
  Again, I congratulate the Chairman and the ranking member for their 
work on this very contentious bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this 
bipartisan legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers], chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the ranking member, for the outstanding job 
they have done, especially with regard to the legislation and its 
development of National Sex Offender Registries, the Violence Against 
Women's programs, Missing and Exploited Children's programs, and the 
State and local law enforcement programs such as the COPS on the Beat 
initiative. I know, as a former assistant DA, these programs will help 
our local communities improve our local public safety.
  I ask my colleagues to please support the legislation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] who has provided such 
leadership for our caucus on this issue.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
before us and intend to vote for it, not because I am so terribly 
satisfied with all of its provisions concerning preparations for the 
next Census, but because I believe it preserves the opportunity to 
continue down a path that will lead toward the most accurate and fair 
Census possible in 2000.
  There are provisions of the agreement over the Census funding and 
design that I do not agree with. I wish they were not in this bill. I 
do not believe that the use of sampling and statistical methods, 
however, poses the risk of an inaccurate and unconstitutional Census. 
To the contrary, those methods, in combination with enhanced 
traditional accounting, hold the only real hope of overcoming the 
persistent high undercount of rural and urban poor and people of color 
and children that continues to plague every Census, and every court 
that has reviewed the question of whether sampling to supplement a 
good-faith traditional accounting effort is constitutional and legal 
has concluded that it is.
  I do not think it is wise to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for a 
lawsuit by the Speaker of the House in an effort to prevent the use of 
sampling in the Census. In essence, the Speaker is asking taxpayers to 
help him ensure that millions of people will not be included in 2000. 
Shame on the Speaker, who supported the use of sampling in 1990, for 
insisting on this provision. Fortunately, I have every confidence that 
a lawsuit will not be successful, but it will be a waste of taxpayers' 
dollars, nonetheless.
  The fact is that there is no realistic chance for an injunction to 
stop the dress rehearsal or the Census. Anyone challenging sampling 
would have to show an irreparable injury from the dress rehearsal going 
forward. There simply is no injury caused by a rehearsal. As with any 
litigation, suits can be brought in a number of courts. However, the 
bill allows for consolidation and requires expedited judicial review by 
the Supreme Court.
  What the agreement does that is most important, however, is that it 
allows the Bureau to prepare for the kind of Census that it believes 
will be most accurate and cost effective. The Bureau will be able to 
carry out and evaluate a Census that uses sampling methods in the 1998 
dress rehearsal.
  I am confident that the dress rehearsal will demonstrate that the 
limited use of sampling and statistical techniques to supplement and 
improve direct counting methods will produce Census numbers that are 
far more accurate and inclusive at all levels of geography than a 
Census that relies only on methods that have not worked well in the 
past.
  When that happens, my colleagues who oppose sampling ought to think 
twice about forcing an inaccurate Census on the American people through 
legislative fiat once again, as they tried to do on the disaster relief 
bill earlier this year. They ought to think twice about preventing the 
Census Bureau from eliminating the inevitable undercount of the poor 
and minorities through threats to deprive the Bureau of adequate 
funding 1 year before this historic undertaking begins.
  All of us will be watching their oversight activities during the next 
year very closely. We will be using every opportunity to reach out to 
the American people, to build their confidence in the Census Bureau's 
work, and for the promise that it holds for a fair count. I urge the 
President to do the same. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that 
we can freely and objectively proceed to demonstrate that the use of 
sampling is wise and sound and, above all, necessary to achieving an 
accurate count in 2000.
  If there is unwarranted interference with the process of preparing 
and implementing for the best Census possible, the American people will 
know it and this administration will fight back, because in the end, 
any effort to cause an incomplete count in some communities will 
guarantee an inaccurate count in all communities. Every State, county, 
city, and neighborhood will suffer.
  So I urge my colleagues to refrain from causing the kind of chaos and 
confusion and misunderstanding about the Census process that some 
provisions in this bill may be designed to foster. If that is the 
purpose, then they ultimately will end up hurting the very people we 
claim to serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the work of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] in crafting the bill, and the work of the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] in making sure it is sound.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAWYER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman be voting for the bill?
  Mr. SAWYER. Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Rogers] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, on the point of the United Nations payments, 
let us clear this up. The bill has in it $100 million to pay our 
arrearage at the United Nations. That is an amount that we owe. 
However, that is subject to passage of an authorization law by the 
Congress. Of course, that law has not yet been passed, but we have 
plenty of time early next year to do that, in which case the $100 
million will be freed up to pay on the arrearage at the United Nations.
  But there is a much bigger issue than that. If Members are concerned 
that at this time especially, we need to be supportive of the United 
Nations, then Members need to vote for this bill because in this bill 
are the funds to pay our annual assessment at the United Nations, which 
is $320 million. That is in this bill. If Members vote no, they are 
harming the United Nations at a very critical time.
  This $320 million, if this bill does not pass, will not be paid by 
the United States. So if Members are worried about our standing at the 
United Nations, if they are worried about us not paying our bills at a 
time of international crisis, then imagine what the effect will be if 
this conference report is defeated.

[[Page H10938]]

  If Members are worried about Iraq and whether the United Nations can 
stand up for our interests, Members need to vote for this bill, because 
it contains the funding to pay our dues in 1998 in full. That $320 
million is at stake. That is one reason why Members need to support 
this bill.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a motion to recommit. 
If Members vote for the motion to recommit, we will be here at least 
next week, because the other body is not in session. We have to 
reconference this bill. I do not know when we will get to it. So if 
Members are worried about the schedule, then they need to vote no on 
the motion to recommit and yes on final passage.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today to oppose the 
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill for FY 
1998 which I believe poses a serious danger to the use of statistical 
sampling in the 2000 Census. By insisting on the language included in 
this legislation, Republicans continue in their opposition to sampling 
which has been universally accepted by the scientific community as the 
best way to ensure a fair and accurate census in 2000.
  The census language in this legislation is problematic in several 
important ways. First, the bill states that the use of statistical 
sampling ``poses the risk of an inaccurate, invalid and 
unconstitutional census.'' This partisan language wrongly presumes the 
unconstitutionality of sampling when every federal court that has 
addressed the issue has held that the Constitution and federal statutes 
support the use of sampling. Second, the bill sets the stage for a 
legal assault on sampling by allowing opponents to file suit in federal 
courts across the country and seek injunctive relief that would halt 
the use of sampling in preparation for the 2000 Census. Third, this 
language gives unprecedented power to the Speaker of the House to sue 
on behalf of the House to block sampling and to use the resources of 
the House Counsel or outside counsel to pursue such litigation. While 
the Speaker is entitled to express his views on sampling wherever and 
whenever he chooses--as he has done frequently in voicing his strong 
opposition to sampling--I cannot support giving him my proxy or that of 
other Members of the House who share my belief that he is dead wrong on 
this issue.
  Sampling is not an exotic or controversial theory. It is a scientific 
principle endorsed by the American Statistical Association, the General 
Accounting Office, and the National Academy of Science. And, it is non-
partisan. In fact, the Republican-appointed director of the last 
census, Barbara E. Bryant.
  Why do we need sampling to conduct an accurate census? The answer is 
simply that our history of conducting the decennial census clearly 
illustrates that the traditional method of enumeration, relying on a 
door to door count for each and every person in this country, is 
neither the most efficient nor the most cost-effective way to conduct 
the census. In fact, in 1990, the Census Bureau reported an undercount 
of 4 million people using the traditional method of enumeration or 1.6% 
of the total population. The Census Bureau estimates that nearly 5 
million people will go uncounted if sampling is not implemented in the 
2000 census.
  The Republican leadership has a singular purpose for the 2000 Census 
and that is to make every effort possible to block the use of sampling. 
Unfortunately, I believe the language in this bill is representative of 
that purpose; therefore, I must oppose this bill.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the Census language in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill 
because all Americans must be counted in this nation's census.
  Republican attempts to make sure that the 2000 census does not 
represent all Americans flies in the face of democracy. We now have the 
opportunity to accurately collect data from all sectors of society 
through the methodology of sampling. If we accept the language in this 
bill, we will direct the Census Bureau to separate planning and 
implementation activities for these ``dress rehearsal'' sites when the 
Census Bureau can barely support one--that is a set up for failure. If 
we accept this language, we will create an entire new subcommittee 
exclusively on the census issue--this not only wastes taxpayers' money 
on a method which all national organizations in the field of 
statistical analysis agree is the most accurate tool for determining 
the census, but also runs contrary to what the Republicans boast as one 
of their greatest accomplishments of the 104th Congress, eliminating 
subcommittees. Finally, if we accept this language, we will permit 
opponents of sampling to file suits in any court in the country, and 
they will file suits until they find a court to issue an injunction 
against the use of sampling. Such an injunction could be the death 
knell for sampling and with no sampling in the ``dress rehearsal'', 
there can be no sampling in the census and no way to avoid the 
inaccuracies of the 1990 census.
  In 1990, four million Americans were not counted and several million 
were counted twice. Between 1940 and 1980 the net undercount of all 
Americans and legal immigrants decreased from 5.4 to 1.2 percent. 
However, the difference between black and non-black undercount 
increased from 3.4 percent in 1940 to 4.3 percent in 1970. In 1980, 
this undercount improved slightly to 3.7 percent, but this is still a 
significant miscalculation of the actual number and kind of people who 
make up this country. In 1990, the difference between Black and non-
Black census undercount was the largest differential in the entire 
history of the census.
  As a representative of California's 37th Congressional District, I am 
particularly concerned about the disproportionately high number of the 
California residents who were not included in the 1990 census. In 1990, 
800,000 people were undercounted in California alone. The entire state 
represented 20% of the 1990 undercount. Because of these errors, my 
state was denied a Congressional seat that rightfully belonged to 
Californians.
  My constituents deserve to be included and counted in the 2000 census 
and in all future census counts.
  The census not only determines how the seats of the House are 
apportioned among the states, but is a significant force in shaping 
private and public sectors across the country. The census is used to 
allocate hundreds of billions of dollars to state and local 
governments. It is used to enforce the Voting Rights Act. It is used by 
businesses to locate specific work force populations. It is used to 
determine the kinds of services to provide to certain demographic 
areas. It is used to allocate resources for the construction of 
highways and the maintenance of adequate water supplies for 
communities.
  This census is too important for it to not be accurate. Leading 
experts, including the National Academy of Sciences, have clearly 
stated the need for statistical sampling. Scientists admit that it is 
impossible to physically count every American citizen and legal 
immigrant in this nation. But it is not impossible to produce an 
accurate assessment of the American population.
  The Census Bureau has made and continues to make tremendous strides 
in trying to accurately calculate census tracts throughout the country. 
With all of these improvements in distribution, collecting and 
analyzing the census surveys and the use of statistical sampling, the 
2000 count could be the most accurate census yet. It could include all 
of the constituents of the 37th Congressional District, of the state of 
California, and of the entire nation. But if we let the current 
language remain in the Commerce, Justice, State bill, we will make the 
realization of this possibility impossible.
  It is illogical, unscientific and wrong to endorse a proposal that we 
know would produce incomplete information about the people who make up 
this nation. We do not have the right to waste taxpayers' money on an 
old methodology that we know is not accurate. And we do not have the 
right to tie up a scientific methodology that is proven effective in 
the hands of adversarial politicians.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, I must rise in opposition to 
this Conference Report, because I fear that the provisions pertaining 
to the availability of funds to the United States Patent and Trademark 
Office set a terrible precedent and could have the effect of stifling 
long-term innovation in this country.
  The House version of the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill 
included a provision, contained in every appropriations bill to date, 
which allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which does not 
receive any taxpayer funding, to spend all that it collects from its 
base user fees for its operations by stating that such funds ``shall 
remain available until expended.''
  Unfortunately, the Senate version of the bill, for the first time 
since the PTO became self-sufficient, capped the amount of its user 
fees that the PTO may spend, diverting the rest to the general treasury 
to be used for other purposes.
  I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman of the House CJS 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], 
in trying to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate 
versions of the bill. I know he did the best he could to keep the House 
version. However, a ``cap'' on the fees still exists in the compromise 
bill and I am dismayed to see, for the first time in history, that the 
PTO will not be able to spend appropriately all of its base fees which 
are set by the Congress.
  We should not sanction a new tax on American innovation by holding 
back funds which come directly from the pockets of applicants for PTO 
services. In my opinion, all these fees are necessary for the efficient 
operation of our Patent and Trademark Office. Remember, not one tax 
dollar goes to the PTO. All the money they spend comes from applicants 
and should

[[Page H10939]]

be available for processing applications quickly and efficiently.
  Any other result will stifle the engine of our growing economy in the 
information age.
  I therefore will regrettably vote ``no'' on this Conference Report. 
We must stand up for inventors and trademark applicants in America.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for nearly three years almost since 
the day the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
or CALEA was enacted, its journey has been problematic. CALEA is now 
more than three years old and is expected to be fully implemented on 
October 25, 1998. It now appears that this may not be the case. 
Conflicts between the FBI and the telecommunications industry over 
capability standards, capacity notices, and cost reimbursements, have 
become commonplace and serious. I have become very concerned that 
delays in putting standards in place have created major handicaps in 
fulfilling the Act. I have also concluded that law enforcement has been 
using CALEA to overreach, and that the FBI is looking to use CALEA for 
the perfect solution to their wiretapping wishes. Indeed, many of the 
so-called ``punch-list'' items clearly are beyond the scope of the Act.
  These and other critical matters were raised during an October 23d 
oversight hearing on CALEA held by the Crime Subcommittee of the 
Judiciary Committee. Chairman McCollum and our colleagues both sides of 
the aisle expressed the need for adjustments to ensure the workability 
of CALEA within the parameters of the Act.
  As we attempt to bring this matter to a head, four issues must be 
dealt with as major areas of contention between industry and law 
enforcement: cost reimbursements, capability standards (through which 
the FBI has been seeking to use imposition of these standards to expand 
the government's wiretap capabilities; which is prohibited by CALEA's 
provisions), capacity notices, and compliance dates. They must all be 
resolved in order to put CALEA back on track.
  Finally, a plan must be developed in which the government will pay to 
retrofit network facilities with no more than the $500 million 
available in the Act without shifting additional costs to industry. If 
we are successful, we will achieve the balance we seek between law 
enforcement security needs and protection of privacy concerns of 
individuals and industry.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 
     2267 to the committee on conference.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit is not debatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 171, 
nays 216, not voting 45, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 639]

                               YEAS--171

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NAYS--216

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--45

     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baker
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Combest
     Cubin
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Flake
     Fowler
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Houghton
     King (NY)
     LaFalce
     Lipinski
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Pickett
     Pryce (OH)
     Riley
     Roemer
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Watkins
     Waxman
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Yates

                              {time}  2141

  Messrs. SNOWBARGER, GUTKNECHT, HOLDEN, KLINK and KANJORSKI changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FORD, OWENS, BARCIA, SCHUMER and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.

[[Page H10940]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 282, 
nays 110, not voting 40, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 640]

                               YEAS--282

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--110

     Barr
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Blunt
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Engel
     Ensign
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Petri
     Pombo
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Smith, Linda
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)

                             NOT VOTING--40

     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baker
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Combest
     Cubin
     Dickey
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Flake
     Fowler
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Houghton
     King (NY)
     LaFalce
     Lipinski
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Miller (CA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Pickett
     Pryce (OH)
     Riley
     Roemer
     Schiff
     Shuster
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Watkins
     Waxman
     Wexler
     White
     Yates

                              {time}  2210

  The clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ortiz for, with Mr. Roemer against.
       Mr. Riley for, with Mr. Yates against.

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________