[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 108 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7104-H7122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, AND JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
508 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 4276.
{time} 1450
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4276) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Pease (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
on Monday, August 3, 1998, the demand for a recorded vote on the
amendment by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) had been
postponed and the bill was open from page 2, line 23, through page 3,
line 13.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mollohan
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan:
On page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
On page 21, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.
On page 25, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
On page 64, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
On page 70, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
On page 85, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
[[Page H7105]]
On page 92, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
On page 99, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.
On page 99, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255,
noes 170, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 381]
AYES--255
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOES--170
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fossella
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neumann
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Conyers
Cunningham
Gonzalez
Goode
Kilpatrick
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Schumer
Towns
{time} 1508
Mrs. KELLY and Mr. SAXTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
administrative review and appeals
For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and
clemency petitions and immigration related activities,
$75,312,000.
In addition, $59,251,000, for such purposes, to remain
available until expended, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), $36,610,000; including
not to exceed $10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential character, to be expended under the direction
of, and to be accounted for solely under the certificate of,
the Attorney General; and for the acquisition, lease,
maintenance, and operation of motor vehicles, without regard
to the general purchase price limitation for the current
fiscal year: Provided, That up to one-tenth of one percent of
the Department of Justice's allocation from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund grant programs may be transferred at the
discretion of the Attorney General to this account for the
audit or other review of such grant programs, as authorized
by section 130005 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322).
United States Parole Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Parole
Commission as authorized by law, $7,400,000.
Legal Activities
salaries and expenses, general legal activities
For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the
Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including
not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to
be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for
solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and
rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of
Columbia; $462,265,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000
for litigation support contracts shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the funds available in this
appropriation, not to exceed $17,834,000 shall remain
available until expended for office automation systems for
the legal divisions covered by this appropriation, and for
the United States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, and
offices funded through ``Salaries and Expenses'', General
Administration: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall be available to the
United States National Central Bureau, INTERPOL, for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
$813,333 of funds made available to the Department of Justice
in this Act shall be transferred by the Attorney General to
the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in
the United States: Provided further, That any transfer
pursuant to the previous proviso shall be treated as a
reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
In addition, $8,160,000, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, to remain available until
expended for such purposes.
In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the
Department of Justice associated with processing cases under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as
amended, not to exceed $4,028,000, to be appropriated from
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.
salaries and expenses, antitrust division
For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and
kindred laws, $68,275,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, not to exceed $68,275,000 of
offsetting collections derived from fees collected for
premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18(a)) shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation, and
[[Page H7106]]
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be
reduced as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 1999, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1999
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more
than $0: Provided further, That any fees received in excess
of $68,275,000 in fiscal year 1999 shall remain available
until expended, but shall not be available for obligation
until October 1, 1999.
salaries and expenses, united states attorneys
For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States
Attorneys, including intergovernmental and cooperative
agreements, $1,037,471,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000
shall be available until September 30, 2000, for (1) training
personnel in debt collection; (2) locating debtors and their
property; (3) paying the net costs of selling property; and
(4) tracking debts owed to the United States Government:
Provided, That, of the total amount appropriated, not to
exceed $8,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That not to exceed
$10,000,000 of those funds available for automated litigation
support contracts shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time
equivalent workyears available to the Offices of the United
States Attorneys, not to exceed 9,044 positions and 9,312
full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the
funds appropriated in this Act for the United States
Attorneys.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ensign
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ensign:
Page 7, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,676,000)''
Page 7, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''
Page 26, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $3,000,000)''
Page 30, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $3,000,000)''
Mr. ENSIGN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Nevada?
There was no objection.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I want to thank the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the subcommittee chairman, for
working with me on this amendment.
What my amendment seeks to do is to increase funding for drug courts
by $3 million. While I would like to have included a little more money
for the drug courts, right now they are funded at $40 million, and my
amendment takes them to $43 million for this year.
The drug courts are something that I truly believe in, and I am going
to outline the reasons that I believe in them. But I do want to thank
the chairman of the subcommittee for working with us on this amendment,
coming up with an offset so that we can have this amendment paid for.
First of all, the drug courts, while they started about 10 years ago
across the country in communities, have had a great effect on reducing
crime throughout our communities. Every single community that has tried
a drug court has found them to be successful: successful in reducing
crime, reducing recidivism, as well as saving the taxpayer money.
Now, in my own State of Nevada, I want to praise one of the judges
there, Judge Lehman. Although we have several drug courts across the
State of Nevada, Judge Lehman is the person that I am the most familiar
with.
Judge Lehman so far has had 931 people graduate from his program in
the drug court program. Of those, only 13 percent have had rearrests
after 6 years. Now, normally in our prison system we have about a 75 to
80 percent repeat-offender rate.
Let me give these numbers again. Normally in our prison system we
have about a 75 to 80 percent recidivist, or repeat offender, rate.
Under Judge Lehman's drug court, only 120 out of almost 1,000 people
who have gone through the drug courts have actually been rearrested for
any reason after 6 years. That is only a 13 percent repeat-offender
rate.
I do not think that there is anything else in our criminal justice
system that can point to that type of success.
What drug courts represent are local, State, and Federal Government
coming together, because that is where the funding comes from, to say
let us put some common sense back into our criminal justice system.
Across the country, criminal justice system professionals estimate
that at least 45 percent of the defendants convicted of drug possession
commit a similar offense within 2 or 3 years of release of jail.
Drug courts have proven truly remarkable in preventing hundreds of
repeat drug offenses in the country. More than 70 percent of the drug
court clients have successfully completed the program or remain as
active participants, and recidivism rates from drug participants, this
is across the country, range from 2 percent to 20 percent.
So we can see not only in Nevada we have had success in drug courts,
but across the country. Not only do we save taxpayer money, we are also
saving lives.
Let me point out something that most people would not think about.
Many children in this country today are born with what we call fetal
alcohol syndrome or fetal drug syndrome. These babies are born to
addicted mothers, not only of alcoholics but also of drug addicts.
Every person that we can get off drugs through these programs or off
alcohol through these programs, that is a life we could be changing.
Because fetal alcohol syndrome, if my colleagues have talked to any
parents that have adopted a child or any parents that have actually had
one in their own family, these children go through some devastating
consequences. As a matter of fact, in our criminal justice system
today, people that were fetal alcohol syndrome babies turn out in many
cases to actually be involved in the criminal justice system by
committing crimes later.
We need to put a stop to fetal alcohol syndrome, to people using
alcohol and drugs while they are pregnant; and one of the best ways to
do that is to start at the preventive side. And the drug courts have
been very successful in getting people off drugs, off of alcohol, so
that we do not end up with this fetal alcohol syndrome.
{time} 1515
I want to just conclude by saying that I appreciate what the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has done and to say that this
amendment while it is just a small amount of money in the big picture
is still something that is very significant because of the tremendous
success that drug courts have had across the country.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases drug courts by $3 million.
That is on top of the $10 million increase that we already have in the
bill for a total of $43 million for drug courts, which is about a 33
percent increase. I agree with the gentleman, the drug court concept is
working, and as more States and localities find out the benefits of the
drug courts, more and more are applying for moneys. Consequently, that
is the reason that we included a hefty increase already in the bill.
But the gentleman's amendment, I think, is well placed and I am
prepared to accept the amendment and so do at this time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we are strongly in favor of drug courts, and we think
that the gentleman has crafted his amendment in the way it would be
acceptable to us. We have no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to request that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) engage in a colloquy with me and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula).
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. I am pleased to engage in a colloquy with both the
gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the
committee report provides additional resources to the DARE program
through the use of unobligated balances in the COPS program. I would
like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their continued support of
[[Page H7107]]
programs which will help reduce drug use among our Nation's youth.
Mr. Chairman, the committee has received a significant appropriation
request for the DARE program in order to improve and expand the DARE
curriculum to more middle schools.
Mr. ROGERS. Let me thank the gentleman from Washington for raising
this issue and for his work on the Drug-Free America Task Force. The
committee received a request from the task force on the day of our
subcommittee markup for significant funds to expand the DARE program
into middle schools and I have worked to provide additional funds for
the DARE program. I will continue to work in conference with the Senate
to see that DARE's curriculum continues to be improved and, to the
extent, appropriate access to additional funds be made available.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the subcommittee and a
longtime supporter of the DARE program, I would like to associate
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt). There is need for expanding the DARE program to middle
schools and to ensure that the best available curriculum is used.
Additionally, the success of the DARE program is not solely limited to
Federal resources. In my district and across the country, DARE has the
support and financial backing of communities and private industry.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to continue to work with
both gentlemen on this issue, and I commend the gentleman for bringing
it up.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, $54,231,000, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, to remain available until
expended for such purposes.
united states trustee system fund
For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee
Program, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 589a(a), $114,248,000, to
remain available until expended and to be derived from the
United States Trustee System Fund: Provided, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, deposits to the
Fund shall be available in such amounts as may be necessary
to pay refunds due depositors: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $114,248,000 of
offsetting collections derived from fees collected pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 589a(b) shall be retained and used for necessary
expenses in this appropriation and remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the Fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections
are received during fiscal year 1999, so as to result in a
final fiscal year 1999 appropriation from the Fund estimated
at $0: Provided further, That any such fees collected in
excess of $114,248,000 in fiscal year 1999 shall remain
available until expended, but shall not be available for
obligation until October 1, 1999.
salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,335,000.
salaries and expenses, united states marshals service
For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals
Service; including the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and
operation of vehicles, and the purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for police-type use, without regard to the general
purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year,
$477,611,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i); of which not
to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses; and of which not to exceed
$4,000,000 for development, implementation, maintenance and
support, and training for an automated prisoner information
system shall remain available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Skaggs
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs:
Page 9, line 8, after ``$477,611,000'' insert ``(increased
by $100)''.
Page 84, line 15, strike ``the Television Broadcasting to
Cuba Act,''.
Page 84, line 20, strike ``and television''.
Page 84, line 21, strike ``$383,957,000,'' and insert
``$374,518,000,''.
Mr. SKAGGS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a very small addition
to the Marshals Service fund and deletes $9.4 million in funding for TV
Marti for a very simple reason: It is a complete waste of money.
I wish to amend the bill at this point in particular so that Members
who may be looking for offsets for more worthy uses of funds later in
the bill would be able to have this $9.4 million for more deserving
application, or conceivably that our good chairman would have a little
bit of working room when he gets to conference, which I suspect he
would welcome.
For Members who may not be familiar with this program, I will first
try to explain the logical reasons that we ought to end TV Marti, but
let me just acknowledge at the outset some advice that I got from a
very informed staff person over at the United States Information
Agency. He said, ``Congressman, you know, you're trying to use logic to
battle a cartoon.'' So if some of this seems a little bit surreal as we
go along, that perhaps will help Members understand what is going on.
Mr. Chairman, TV Marti is broadcast out of a balloon hung over the
Florida Keys most weekdays from 3:30 a.m., until 8 a.m., and it goes
to, or tries to go to, the greater Havana area. But since TV Marti
began broadcasting in 1990, virtually nobody has seen it because, sad
to say, the Castro government is very successful in jamming it. To date
we have spent over $110 million, real money, on this failed program.
I think it follows, quite logically, that since nobody sees this TV
program, it really can make no contribution to bringing freedom and
democracy to Cuba, a goal which we all share.
On the other hand, this amendment does not touch Radio Marti, the
sister program of TV Marti, which does get through, just as Radio Free
Europe got through despite jamming by the Soviets during the Cold War.
My amendment has no effect on Radio Marti.
During the Cold War, radio transmissions had a significant audience
in the Eastern Bloc because it is relatively easy to defeat jamming of
radio. Television signals, on the other hand, are exclusively line of
sight, easy to jam and as a practical matter there really is no
alternative frequency.
TV Marti's broadcasts have been jammed from the beginning. At least
seven, count them, seven objective studies by people without an ax to
grind in this have been done since 1991. Not one of them has found any
significant audience for TV Marti.
We should have disbanded this operation back in 1994 after an
advisory panel found there was no significant audience. Instead, the
backers of this program came up with, I think, the slightly nutty idea
that if only we changed from a VHF, very high frequency, signal to an
ultrahigh frequency, UHF signal, that that would solve the problem. We
spent $1.7 million doing that, knowing full well that it would be even
easier to jam the UHF signal than the VHF.
All it takes to do that is for some signal to be transmitted on the
same frequency as TV Marti with a comparable field strength. Our own
National Association of Broadcasters has told us it requires little
more than a 100-watt transmitter and an off-the-shelf antenna and that
that could deliver enough field strength in a 30-mile diameter to be
effective.
Here is a map of the greater Havana area. The hash marks on the
overlay indicate a 30-mile diameter. This is the area that can be
jammed effectively with a 100-watt transmitter. It takes about 200
watts of power to yield the 100-watt signal. Members can see there is a
little bit of area that is not quite covered, so maybe we need two
jammers for a total of 400 watts. So for four light bulbs' worth of
power, sad to say, the Castro government is able to completely nill
this TV signal coming from the balloon over the Keys. While he is
spending literally nickels and dimes on electricity to do this, we are
spending about $25,000 a day wasting taxpayers' money sending invisible
television to nowhere.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Skaggs) has expired.
[[Page H7108]]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Skaggs was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. SKAGGS. Nonetheless we did this UHF to VHF conversion, and it was
really no surprise that the signal still did not get through.
Let me just give my colleagues some visual evidence that was elicited
by one of our own government technicians who went down to Cuba to check
on what was going on technically. This is a picture of the TV Marti
logo when it came on the air on Channel 64 while this USIA technician
was monitoring signals. A couple of minutes later, once the jamming
signal was put on the air by Castro's people, this was the jammed
picture that came through. Likewise, sometimes we use a different
channel. This is what Channel 50 of TV Marti looks like when the
jamming is in place. There has been a survey done by the U.S. Interest
Section at the Swiss Embassy where we have our presence in Havana
showing that virtually no one sees this new UHF signal.
Now, there is some suggestion that this is still a bargain. Let me
just tell Members, compared to the costs of our other international
broadcasting efforts, TV Marti is not only a waste of money because the
signal does not get through but it's also a very, very rich program in
terms of our costs of producing an hour that we put on the air.
As Members can see, for each hour of programming by comparable
efforts, Radio Marti 8 to 11 employees; Radio Free Asia, 8 to 15; Voice
of America, 1.3. A real bargain. Just to give Members a television
comparison, C-SPAN, about 9 employees. TV Marti in order to get one
hour of programming on the air takes 40.6 employees.
There are other costs as well. Right now we have one balloon flying
over the Keys for this purpose and for air interdiction, drug
interdiction purposes. The National Security Council has decided that
we will risk a hole in our air defenses by letting this one aerostat
balloon instead be used on TV Marti.
As I said, we have already spent $110 million on this. If we fully
fund it again we will have gone to about $120 million. This is simply a
classic example of a failed program.
Supporters of this program say it will be a propaganda victory for
the Castro regime if we eliminate it. I have got to believe that it is
a much bigger victory for the American taxpayer if we stop this kind of
waste. We are spending millions while he is spending nickels and dimes.
We will continue to broadcast to Cuba with Radio Marti. This is not
giving up on that effort.
I know many colleagues have heard my pitch on this before, but it is
way past time to put this failed program out of its misery. I ask for
Members' support on the amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia to the Amendment Offered by
Mr. Skaggs
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia to the amendment
offered by Mr. Skaggs:
Strike the last line of the amendment and insert
``$374,520,000,''.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simply a
perfecting amendment. I agree with the gentleman from Colorado that TV
Marti is an unfortunate waste of taxpayers' money. Because its
broadcasts are jammed, TV Marti does not have a significant audience
and in fact I would think it should be eliminated. Like the underlying
amendment, my amendment deletes the funding for TV Marti but leaves
just a bit more money in the international broadcasting operations for
other programs.
{time} 1530
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman would accept my
amendment.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to accept the gentleman's
amendment to my amendment, and if may I ask him to continue to yield, I
think there is one other important consideration that ought to be
brought to Members' attention as we deal with this whole issue.
Recently there was a survey done in Cuba under the auspices of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, the overall entity that supervises our
international broadcasting activities. Based upon that survey, in which
4 people out of 284 surveyed said they may have seen TV Marti in the
last few days, our own Broadcasting Board of Governors has determined
and issued a report that this UHF signal is jammed just as easily as
the old VHF was and there is no significant audience.
There is going to be, I suspect, some use of this survey, and I just
think it is important for Members to understand how this survey was
done. The persons surveyed included only those who had come to the U.S.
interest section in the Swiss Embassy in Havana to apply for visas to
come to the United States, so that was not exactly a random sample.
These are people that are trying to get out, understandably so.
Also of interest is the fact that in the waiting room for the U.S.
interest section there is a television set there which broadcasts TV
Marti because they have a satellite dish. So the idea that even these 4
people out of 284 give us any basis for hope that the signal is getting
through I think is pretty well undermined by the way this survey was
done.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). It just boggles the mind how with all the
priorities that we have in this country, that we would be spending
millions and millions of dollars to maintain a system that serves no
real function other than perhaps a political one.
I saw the chart up there, and would the gentleman confirm that we
have more than 40 employees working on TV Marti compared to a handful
on Radio Free Asia and some of the programs that actually are
effective?
Mr. SKAGGS. If the gentleman will yield, that was a calculation of
number of FTEs per hour of programming, and it is about 40 FTEs per
hour for TV Marti. Its sister operation, radio, is way down there,
around 8 employees per hour. Of course that is radio rather than TV,
but even discounting for that, it is a very, very rich program.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. This is really an unbelievable waste of
taxpayers' money.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) has expired.
(On request of Mr. HEFNER, and by unanimous consent, Mr. MORAN of
Virginia was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, without going into the technical part of
broadcasting, I have some experience with broadcasting. I own radio
stations, and sponsors that buy spots on one's radio station or
television station, they have to justify that they are reaching so many
people in their market.
There is not an investor, there is not a corporation in the United
States that would pay the tariff to carry the television to Marti. This
is absolutely a total waste of money. From a practical standpoint, this
is money, and the priorities are absolutely ridiculous.
In the first place, it is probably the highest cost per listener of
any station in the United States or anywhere else because unless the
government pays it, one could not afford to broadcast this into this
area, and to me we have our priorities kind of messed up here.
Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on Appropriations we did away with the
heating assistance to our poor people and our older people, and we are
spending these millions of dollars on Television Marti that is
absolutely producing no results. And to me that is a total waste of
money, a total waste of priorities, and we should go ahead, just go
ahead and kill this thing and be done with it because it is absolutely
useless for the purpose that it was supposedly set up to do.
Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely not working, and it is a waste of
taxpayers' money.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it really is
a scandal. I think the only reason that it
[[Page H7109]]
continues is that most taxpayers just have no idea that this is going
on. They have no idea of the facts. They trust the Congress is going to
do the right thing with their tax money.
But I cannot imagine any objective observer, any average taxpayer who
would want their money wasted in such a scandalous fashion as it is
with TV Marti, where there is no audience, where there is an enormous
amount of overhead, and where no advertiser would ever purchase time
because there is no audience to this thing. And yet we are spending
millions and millions and millions of dollars, apparently for some
political purpose but certainly not for any objective public policy
purpose.
So, unless the gentleman has anything further to add, I will conclude
my statement, and I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs)
accepting the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The perfecting amendment and the amendment both would do away with
the funding for TV Marti. The gentleman from Colorado, a friend and
member of our subcommittee who has served so well in this Congress and
in our subcommittee, has led a long and determined effort to kill
funding for TV Marti.
This is the most recent chapter of a long book, and the gentleman is
to be commended for, if nothing else, his persistence and a well-
reasoned argument, but the full committee again this year rejected his
amendment in full committee. It has been rejected in subcommittee. It
has been rejected in full committee for several years running.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, the full committee adopted the gentleman's
substitute to my amendment, which was not ultimately made part of the
bill because I withdrew it. I think it is not exactly fair to say it
was rejected on the merits.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the point is well taken, but again it is
the same effort. It is the effort to eliminate TV Marti funding.
This year the bill includes $9.4 million for TV Marti, which
represents a continuation of just basic funding. The gentleman's
amendment would delete the entire amount.
Despite the continuing difficulties that the gentleman cites in TV
Marti, terminating this program, Mr. Chairman, is not the answer.
Termination is not the answer. Providing accurate and objective news,
as we know, helped bring about change in the former Soviet Union as
well as Eastern Europe, and we are now broadcasting, as we all know,
for the first time into Asia and other parts of the world. It can play
the same role in China and in Cuba as well.
We are all frustrated by the difficulties of reaching a large
audience with TV Marti, but we should not let those difficulties bar us
or prevent us from trying. I, for one, am unwilling to give up and give
in to Fidel Castro. Deleting the money for TV Marti is running up the
white flag to Fidel Castro.
Mr. Chairman, I do not possess a white flag.
We have a duty to press for more freedom in the prison that lies so
close to our shores and with such strong historical ties with the
United States, so I support continued funding. We will encourage the
USIA and the Broadcasting Board that oversees these programs to bring
us some more creative and realistic proposals to increase the reception
of these broadcasts in Cuba, but I think we should continue to try.
The aerostat that is being used as the antenna for broadcasting TV
into Cuba is a shared aerostat with the Department of Defense. Our
Nation's defense rests upon this so-called balloon. That is the way the
DOD communicates. We are using the Department of Defense balloon, or
aerostat, for reaching an audience in Cuba.
Yes, we have had difficulty in reaching into Havana, but we are still
reaching portions of Cuba. And so I urge the defeat both of the
perfecting amendment and the gentleman from Colorado's amendment, and
hope that the House will not run up the white flag on this proud
building.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. Chairman, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
everyone has the right to seek to receive and to impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. So for almost four
decades the people of Cuba have been denied this basic, universally-
recognized right. They have been denied this right by the Castro
regime.
The Cuban dictatorship realized from the onset that knowledge
empowers, and it knew that if it controlled the flow of information, it
would be able to manipulate the Cuban people and forever imprison them
in a parallel world created by Castro's lies and twisted propaganda.
Thus, if it were to sustain its campaign against the United States,
against American newspapers, magazines and broadcasts, it had to be
prohibiting all the information at all cost.
So, Mr. Chairman, the people of Cuba have lived in absolute darkness
about the U.S. commitment to freedom and democracy in their island
Nation until the first broadcast of Radio Marti was transmitted into
Cuba. Another milestone was crossed when TV Marti began its
transmissions in 1990.
Do we want to allow the veil of silence to envelope Cuba once again?
Cutting off funding for TV Marti would do just that. TV Marti
challenges Castro's hold by educating the Cuban people about our
policies in the United States and about American society. It is
critical to fulfilling the mission that USIA has of explaining and
supporting American foreign policy and of promoting U.S. national
interests through a wide range of overseas information programs.
TV Marti offers the U.S. Government our capacity to reach out to the
Cuban people on two fronts. It is an integral component of a
multifaceted strategy to bring freedom and democracy to the last
bastion of communism in our Western Hemisphere, and it is also a
conveyor of truth as well as its servant. Thus, eliminating TV Marti
would place truth at a significant disadvantage against the venom that
is spread daily by the Castro regime.
We have heard arguments from opponents of TV Marti that it does not
reach the Cuban people because of jamming by the regime. Well, copies
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that I quoted from earlier
and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, those documents are
frequently confiscated by the Castro regime. Does that mean that we
should stop trying to send these valuable international documents to
the dissidents, to the growing opposition, to the general population?
Religious groups tell us that they routinely try to smuggle bibles into
Cuba. Castro's thugs block their distribution. So we should stop
sending bibles to the enslaved Cuban people? Of course not.
TV Marti is reaching the Cuban people. One new viewer means that one
more person will question the situation in Cuba. One more viewer means
one more person that has escaped Castro's intellectual imprisonment.
Castro used to very massively jam Radio Marti, and the opponents on
the other side worked very hard to get the funding out of Radio Marti.
Well, now the signal is going through, the technology was improved, so
now they say we have got to block TV Marti.
But if this body passes the Skaggs amendment or the Moran amendment,
the House of Representatives would be awarding a tremendous victory
that we would be bestowing upon the oppressors, while at the same time
depriving the enslaved people of Cuba of a critical tool that we can
give them, which is unbiased, free information. It would essentially
cut off the flow to Cuba, as the dictatorship would be able to
concentrate its resources on blocking the remaining broadcast, and the
result would be an even more strengthened Castro regime.
Does the United States Congress want to be an accomplice to the
further entrenchment of a regime which serves as a safe haven for U.S.
criminals? We have a long list from the FBI of U.S. fugitives who are
now given refuge in Cuba, and we know that Castro is harboring global
terrorists. We know that Castro allows Cuba to be used as a
[[Page H7110]]
transit point for illegal narcotics trafficking that will later reach
the U.S. shores.
We should not be held accountable for all of this misery in Cuba. We
should help the Cuban people free themselves of the oppressor. We
should not be an accomplice for this further entrenchment of a regime.
The only choice available to us today, Mr. Chairman, is to support TV
Marti and vote against the Skaggs and the Moran amendments, and I
congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his steadfast
support of these very needed programs of transmission to the enslaved
people of Cuba.
{time} 1545
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me first show our colleagues two quick things here.
First of all, this picture that the gentleman from Colorado has made
available to me is a transmitting gadget which costs about $5,000. This
is effective in jamming a signal of one of the largest taxpayer's waste
of money, which has cost $110 million. So for $5,000, I can jam that
signal. I think that is a better deal.
Secondly, let us understand what TV Marti is. TV Marti is, and I have
called it this for many years that I have been the coauthor of this
book that the gentleman from Colorado has been writing, is an
electronic toy for a lot of people, for a little group in this country,
that makes a lot of political donations and in return gets a foreign
policy that they like.
I would hope that instead of taking taxpayer dollars to buy that toy
called TV Marti, they would do what I do. When I want my electronic
toys, I simply use my Radio Shack card, and it is much cheaper and does
not hurt the taxpayers in any way. So I would recommend that to some
folks in Miami and others places.
It is interesting to note that one of the things that happened with
TV Marti is its offices were moved to Florida, I think we did that last
year or the year before, because, supposedly, I think, you could get
closer to Cuba through your transmission, not from Washington, but from
Florida. I do not think that is what it was, but that is what we were
told it was.
I have a lot of respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, but I
keep watching him every time he defends TV Marti to see if he is
smiling or not, because I want to make sure that he really believes
everything he is telling us.
Let us understand something: TV Marti may survive today once again.
We are going to get closer to defeating it one of these days, but it
may survive again. If it survives, it is only because it is a political
issue that we Americans do not know how to deal with.
We found out how to deal with China; we found out how to deal with
Vietnam; we know how to deal with Korea. We even, it looks like, know
how to deal with Iran and Iraq. But we do not know how to deal with
Cuba. So we keep taking taxpayer dollars to build this big monster
called an island of 11 million people that is somehow going to invade
us and take us over one day. We are not going to discuss that part. The
only invasion they will make can be seen at Yankee Stadium and other
places where their quality of baseball continues to increase our
quality of baseball.
Mr. Chairman, if Members are going to support this, support it for
what it is. It is a political ploy to satisfy a small group of people.
Most people in that community do not even believe that this is good use
of taxpayer dollars. But what you cannot do is continue to stand here
and say that TV Marti is the salvation of American democracy, that TV
Marti somehow is going to save the Western World from this monster of
an island in the Caribbean.
TV Marti, I submit once again, is nothing more than a small group of
people's electronic toy. I do not mind them having a toy, but not with
my tax dollars.
So I would hope Members would support the gentleman from Colorado's
amendment, and I will yield to him. I know he has a few additional
statements to make.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I just wanted to offer some response to the gentlewoman from Florida,
who I know feels deeply and sincerely, and I respect her feelings. And
if I thought that somehow TV Marti was able to be made successful in
getting information into Cuba, then the very moving arguments that the
gentlewoman made would have some real traction.
But this is not David Skaggs saying this does not work. Every time we
have asked some outside group to take a look at this problem of
electronics, how do you overcome a 100-watt jammer with a TV signal
from an aerostat balloon, they keep coming back and saying it is not
feasible. It does not work.
That is what we heard from the President's task force in 1991 and
1994. It is what we heard from the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy in 1991 and 1993. It is what the GAO said in 1992. It is what
the advisory panel that the Congress set up in 1993 told us in 1994. It
is what the Committee on Appropriations investigative staff said in
1995. It is what the Board of Broadcasting Governors, the entity we set
up to supervise this whole part of the government, told us twice this
year. It does not work.
I am sorry, it does not work. We should not spend money on it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am a loyal member of
the Committee on Appropriations and I respect the work done by both the
majority and the minority, but it really hurts to see we are cutting
education, we are cutting heating for senior citizens, we are cutting
environmental programs, and we are wasting $110 million on a signal
that was seen once with some Popeye cartoons.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong opposition
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs)
which seeks to eliminate TV Marti.
Soviet communism may have been a bad memory in Europe, but the
crushing weight of its repression still bears down on the Cuban people.
Cuba is not a normal nation; it is a totalitarian state. A still
ruthlessly effective secret police snuffs out the slightest dissent
with repression and harsh prison terms. Freedom of the press does not
exist in Cuba. It is even illegal to possess a copy of the Miami
Herald. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered by
Cuban officials as enemy propaganda.
Uncensored information is freedom's lifeblood in a closed society,
and Fidel Castro fully knows that. That is why he jams Radio and TV
Marti. He does not do it 100 percent successfully either. That is why
he and his regime would have cause to celebrate if TV Marti were
silenced by the Skaggs amendment.
TV Marti, with an appropriation of some $9 million, provides the
Cuban people with a window to the outside world and a hopeful glimpse
of the future. It is vitally important that Cuban-Americans are active
participants in Radio and TV Marti's good work. We need to bear in mind
that it was Fidel Castro who forcibly divided the Cuban family. Radio
and TV Marti helps to reunite the Cuban family in their common quest
for freedom. That is the spirit behind Radio and TV Marti.
If TV Marti's audience is limited, it is because that is the way Mr.
Castro would like it. TV Marti's reporting is journalistically sound
and evenhanded. That is why Mr. Castro opposes it. That is an important
argument why we should be for it.
The Castro regime complains loudly at every effort by our Nation to
support freedom in Cuba. We should not waver in our message of hope for
the Cuban people that one day their nightmare, too, will end.
I ask my colleagues to think about the dissidents in Cuba and about
the millions more who quietly resist that dictatorship. Silencing TV
Marti will send a chilling message to every Cuban who has the courage
to struggle
[[Page H7111]]
against Mr. Castro's tyranny. Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to
defeat the Skaggs amendment.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am also a member of the Committee on Appropriations,
and we have worked very, very hard to work with very few funds this
year. If we were talking about the things that the gentleman from New
York and the gentlewoman from Miami were talking about, if we were
getting results, all right. Nobody shows us any results from these
broadcasts. You air from 3 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock. I am
convinced if they were not jammed, there would be very few people
watching television at 3 o'clock in the morning.
If you look at the cost, there is not any television station or a
band of television stations that the cost is as much as it is for TV
Marti.
Somebody is making a lot of money, it is not very efficiently run,
and there is, as I said earlier, not a corporation in the world that
would invest money in as few listeners as TV Marti has.
I made the point about the yoke of communism that the Cuban people
bear, and that is a tragedy. But we have had a policy in Cuba ever
since I have been involved in politics that has not been effective. TV
Marti is not effective, and even the proponents of TV Marti can give
you no numbers of how many people that TV Marti is reaching and what
the cost per listener is that it costs the taxpayers of this country.
I yield to nobody in my fight to release people from the yoke of
communism and for defense of this great country, but these arguments
are pretty ludicrous when you talk about that this is our last stand to
try to do away with Castro, and that if TV Marti is gone, we have lost
the whole battle and we do not have the commitment to the Cuban people.
To me, that is totally ludicrous, and I would urge that Members vote
for the Skaggs amendment.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, the campaign which has been led by the gentleman from
Colorado in Jihad fashion for years to kill Cuba broadcasting has had
many tactics and strategies. The tactic that is being emphasized now,
the tactic a la mode, is Castro jamming. That is the tactic being
emphasized now.
We have heard other tactics, and we have certainly seen them. The
gentleman from Colorado referred to report after report, investigation
after investigation, report after report, investigation after
investigation that has been imposed upon that group of Federal workers,
and yet they continue to do their job and to do a good job.
One of the last reports imposed upon those Federal workers, done by
the Board of Broadcasting Governors, contained a survey, the most
scientific and empirical survey that has been done in any totalitarian
state with regards to the reception of our broadcasts, and the survey
was specifically with regard to what the gentleman from Colorado with
his amendment seeks to kill today, Television Marti. That survey, which
was made public first in two ``Dear Colleagues'' from the gentleman
from Colorado, dated July 23, stated that TV Marti viewership, and I
mention it here, has a 1.5 percent audience share.
Now, let us look at this. This is the survey that I first came across
from a report that the gentleman from Colorado made public now, a 1.5
percent audience share. Let us compare that to the other equally
important radio broadcasts that our Nation sends, for example, to
China, Radio Free Asia. In Cantonese, \1/10\ of 1 percent is what that
same report from the Board of Governors says is the audience share of
Radio Free Asia in Cantonese, our broadcasts to China. Not 1.5 percent,
but \1/10\ of 1 percent. In English, \6/10\ of 1 percent. In Mandarin,
2 percent, comparable to the 1.5 percent audience share that TV Marti
has.
This is with a survey, which, of course, then in a subsequent Dear
Colleague, the gentleman from Colorado said ``No, no, no, wait a
minute. I am not making that survey public; do not pay attention to it
now, because I made reference to it in a Dear Colleague.''
No, I want to make reference and emphasis on the survey that the
gentleman from Colorado made public, a 1.5 percent audience share. This
was an actual survey of viewers of Television Marti.
What are the comparables with regard to the radio broadcasts, very
important broadcasts to Croatia and Hungary and Slavonia and Russia?
They are all comparable, for example, around the 2 percent range.
I do not know if the Russians continue to jam or not. I do know that
when the Russians were at their maximum jamming capacity, it was down
to what it is in China today, \1/10\ of 1 percent. But I have never
heard in the 6 years that I have been in Congress, nor in my studies
beforehand, the gentleman from Colorado or the other opponents of Cuba
broadcasting, never once have I heard them say, ``Oh, wait a minute.
There is jamming. There was jamming of Radio Free Europe. There was
jamming of Radio Liberty. There is jamming today by the communist
Chinese of Radio Free Asia, so we have to eliminate that.''
No, thank God, they have not embarked upon their Jihad to try to kill
Radio Free Asia, and they did not try to kill Radio Free Europe and
Radio Liberty.
{time} 1600
But for some reason, they have embarked and they continued to embark
on this Jihad to kill Cuba broadcasting.
He says now that it is TV Marti that he is after, based on the
pretext of the audience. But I remember, I remember in 1993 when I was
a freshman Member of this House and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Skaggs) had an amendment, and succeeded at the first stage in the
appropriations process in killing radio and television, television and
radio. The greatest success story in the history of USIA broadcasts,
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) tried to kill that as well.
But he cannot use the reception argument on that, so he talks about the
reception of TV Marti. According to the gentleman's own report that he
made public, it is 1.5 percent.
Let us be clear. I think the best way which we can understand what
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is after is in Castro's own
newspaper, Cuba Workers, from July 20:
The recent budget approved by the U.S. House contains
funding again for Radio and TV Marti. It is incredible how
much money is wasted to support extremist positions of the
most conservative American legislators. Fortunately, of
course, there are some legislators who have been objective in
opposing these bills, such as Democrat Representative David
Skaggs, whose analyses prove that both Radio and TV Marti are
a waste of public funds.
I do not think it is a time to provide a victory for Castro. It is a
time to continue the fight for freedom of information for Cuba, and
continue funding for TV Marti.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Skaggs and Moran
amendments. Year after year we have defeated the attempts to eliminate
funding for TV Marti, and to deny over 40,000 Cubans viewership of this
important independent news. Even those who disagree with our policy on
Cuba, and that is not what is in debate here, must believe in the
opportunity for an open window of information to the Cuban people.
If they do not believe in that, then they must take the same position
on a whole host of other TV broadcasting that we do to other parts of
the world that cannot meet the audience share that TV Marti meets.
Supporters of the amendment would have us believe that no one in Cuba
is seeing TV Marti. Quite the contrary. The Broadcasting Board of
Governors reports that Cuba has a 1.5 percent audience share in Cuba.
That is greater than the audience share in 37 other countries where we
have broadcast through VOATV and World Net TV.
What are some of those countries? China, North Korea, Pakistan,
Somalia, Indonesia, parts of Africa. If we accept this standard that a
1.5 share is not enough, then clearly, for all of those other countries
for which we have an interest in sending a message from the United
States about our intentions vis-a-vis those countries, about our
position vis-a-vis those countries, about what we stand for in our
foreign policy, then we must also seek
[[Page H7112]]
to eliminate those, because if not, we have a double standard in the
process.
Mr. Chairman, that means that 1.5 percent more people in Cuba are
watching TV Marti broadcasts than there are viewers in China, in North
Korea, in Somalia, in Turkey, in Cameroon, and 30 other nations. In
fact, audience share in North Korea is less than 1 percent, and the
audience share for Cantonese broadcasts in China is a mere .1 percent.
Why do we not see amendments eliminating funding for broadcasts to
those? By this standard, these broadcasts should be eliminated
forthwith.
The question that I think some have failed to ask themselves is why
does Castro seek to abolish TV Marti? Why does he care if TV Marti does
not penetrate Cuba? Because it does. TV Marti does penetrate Cuba and
it does reach some Cuban households.
If we think about that, if we think about the messages that go to the
Cuban government and the Cuban military who do have access to TV Marti
and our ability to send messages at that level of the government, if we
think about the ability to be ready in a time of transition when
jamming may not done, when there is a movement internally in the
country, our ability to talk to those people by the power of images,
such as CNN, it will be important. We will not be able to do that
transmission if we do not have TV Marti at that time.
In our own interest section, TV Marti is played. Over 75,000 Cubans
enter our interest section every year. What are they doing while they
are waiting to see a counselor or officer? They are seeing TV Marti and
the broadcasts that are recorded.
Yes, Cuba does jam TV Marti some of the time, but America has never
responded to a recipient country's jamming of programming by simply
giving up. That is the standard the Members will set. If jamming is the
reason why Members will not permit TV Marti to go forward, then
understand that if any other countries are jammed, we do not have the
audience share, and the same situation will be sought to apply for
others.
The Cuban people have not given up on their hope of democracy. I do
not think we in America who are a fountain and beacon of light to
people throughout the world in terms of information, that we should be
giving up on them and creating a different standard.
Even Joe Duffey of the United States Information Agency, the
director, in letters to the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers),
and others have said that they in fact believe that TV Marti can be
effective. We need to make sure that at this point in time we in fact
stand with the free flow of information.
Let me close on that. So many of my colleagues who have a
disagreement about our policy talk about a free flow of information. We
have heard in the past both Radio and TV Marti attacked on this floor.
Now it is limited to TV Marti. Forty thousand Cubans; the ripple
effect: 75,000 who see it at the U.S. intersection, the government
officials, the military officials who have satellites. All of them make
a dramatic impact, and the ripple effect of that can flow into the
mightiest walls of oppression.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Skaggs, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Menendez was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman did not mean to
mischaracterize the recent survey that he referred to. In fact, as the
gentleman may not be aware, the Broadcasting Board of Governors did not
find a 1.5 percent audience share. In fact, they discounted this mock
survey that both the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from
Florida earlier alluded to as being invalid, as having any statistical
significance at all.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is my
understanding from Mr. Duffey, who is the USIA director and who
ultimately oversees all of Cuban broadcasting as part of the
broadcasting that the United States Information Agency does in terms of
surrogate broadcasting, that that 1.5 percent is a valid share of the
audience.
Mr. SKAGGS. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, in
fact it is the Board of Broadcasting Governors that oversees this
entire operation, not Mr. Duffy anymore, in terms of policy and
validation. Mr. Duffy happened to dissent from the finding of the Board
of Broadcasting Governors that basically discounted this so-called
survey, which, as I mentioned earlier, was not a scientific survey at
all. It was a survey voluntarily returned by visa applicants who had
been standing in line.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, I would venture to say that the
gentleman, with all due respect, and I know this is a passionate issue
for him and he has pursued it year after year, that what the gentleman
comes to the floor and suggests is also not based on any scientific
survey.
I do believe that Mr. Duffey, who is a director of the United States
Information Agency and oversees Voice of America, World Net TV, and
others, has a greater ability than the gentleman or I, sir, to
determine whether or not something is effective in the context of
surrogate broadcasting from the United States throughout the world.
In that context, I am willing to listen to the expert in that
context. He clearly believes that this makes sense.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. For years I have
supported the efforts of my colleagues to pass legislation which would
make it more difficult for Mr. Castro to continue his dictatorship in
Cuba. But I believe also that that effort should be bottomed on
effective means of accomplishing the purpose, and that that effort
should be bottomed on something which is going to spend the taxpayers'
money well.
Here is a picture, and I am sorry that we do not have a bigger one,
but this is TV Marti. We are going to spend $9 million on this picture
being displayed in Havana. It is going to cost the Cubans for the
jamming of TV Marti about the equivalent of the cost of about four 100-
watt light bulbs a day. That is all it is going to cost. We are going
to spend $9 million on this. It will be a fine employment for a number
of people who will profess their strong anti-Castro credentials. It
will be the continuation of $100 million in wasted public expenditures
belonging to the American taxpayer.
It is not long back that there was a hurricane that hit down there in
Florida. It blew down the balloon that holds up the transmitter. The
interesting thing is that nobody in Cuba knew whether that balloon was
up or down, and nobody in Cuba knew what was being sent out on TV
Marti. But then, they did not know that when TV Marti's balloon was up,
and they did not know that when TV Marti was broadcasting.
We are the conservators of money belonging to the taxpayers of the
United States. The amount in this bill is only about $9 million. We can
say that is not much money, but that is $9 million that we could spend
for something else that would be more worthwhile. It is something which
would enable us to perhaps have some more effective way of dealing with
Fidel Castro and his thugs. It is also $9 million we could use better
on efforts to better the lives of our people. It is $9 million that we
could use better to perhaps reduce the national debt.
I understand the enthusiasm of my colleagues who support the cause of
Cuba. They figure anything we do which is going to hurt Castro is good.
That is fine reasoning, providing it in fact does hurt Mr. Castro, and
provided in fact it does see to it that Mr. Castro leaves office at the
earliest possible minute and that democracy be restored to Cuba.
Certainly that is a laudible goal for the United States.
But to spend $9 million a year broadcasting a picture which looks
like this to Cuba and culminates in $100 million in expenditures over
time, whose sole visible benefit to the United States is that we have
provided modest levels of increased employment in Florida for people
who profess to be opposed to Castro, no.
I am not a representative of anybody except the American people and
the folks of the 16th District. I think that
[[Page H7113]]
almost every one of us would say that that was our function here in the
Congress, to serve the people that elect us, and also to serve the
interests of the people of the United States.
We should look at this picture and ask ourselves whether this is what
we want to spend our constituents' money on. We should ask ourselves
whether we want to spend the taxpayers' money on something that has
proven to reach so few people, to confer so little benefit on the
United States, to do so little hurt to communism and Fidel Castro, and
to do so at such large costs.
TV Marti has been reviewed time after time, including by agencies
like the General Accounting Office. They have found that it is totally
ineffective, and it is totally ineffective in terms of getting whatever
story there is out.
The one good thing that can be said about TV Marti is that it has
given a rallying point to anti-Castro Cubans. It has provided fine
employment for them. It has given them leverage and political posture
and position in the United States, but it has done nothing to hurt
Fidel Castro or communism, or to further our American policies.
Indeed, all it has done has been to dissipate some significant
amounts of energy, large amounts of the taxpayers' money, and to
provide a fiction that people can come in here and tell us something.
Look at this picture. That is what Cubans in Havana are seeing. It is a
picture of a well-scrambled, well-obfuscated television channel which
is costing the Cubans virtually nothing, but which costs the United
States a lot. Support the amendment. Let us get rid of this turkey.
{time} 1615
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this House is the institution in the world that
epitomizes freedom in the world. Our country, the oldest democracy in
the history of the world, when we say that it just kind of rolls off
our tongues, but I think every once in a while we need to stop and
think about what that means.
The price of freedom has not been easy, as all of us know. It has
been costly in many ways, in lives and money over hundreds of years at
this point in time. This House and this country has had a commitment to
that. We have used a variety of methods to achieve our goals. Who would
have thought in this Chamber, in this country, really in this world
that the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union does not exist. And
how did that happen?
History books will be written about how it happened, why it happened.
But I think clearly an instrumental part of that was Radio Free Europe.
The facts are it was jammed. It was jammed on a continuous basis. It
was jammed more effectively, less effectively during different points
in time. The facts are that we are trying to bring freedom throughout
the world today in the darkest corners of this planet, where freedom
has what appears to be no hope, whether it is in North Korea or in
China.
We are committed as an institution, I think universally, every one of
us, I really believe, as well as every American, towards those goals.
Yet in those countries I just mentioned, as we try to broadcast in to
them, the penetration, because of effective jamming, is very, very
small. Less than 1 percent of people in those countries are able to
hear what we broadcast.
At no point in the history of the United States of America have we
given up on our actions towards freedom. This amendment is an attempt
to do exactly that. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment
because this would be a dark chapter in the history of this House, a
turning back of really over 200 years of American freedom.
My colleagues, several colleagues have argued of the fact that a very
small percentage of Cubans are able to see TV Marti, I can even accept
that, of 1.5 percent. But let us talk about what that means. That means
40,000 people, 40,000 people do have access. And this is not, it is
funny, in terms of what the reality is of Cuba.
I happen to represent the district in this country closest to Cuba. I
represent south Florida and the Florida Keys, including Key West. When
I am in Key West, I am 90 miles from Havana. I am actually 110 miles
from Miami. I actually live about 60 miles north of Miami. My district
goes even further north, to give my colleagues a sense of the geography
of south Florida.
I live in a community, I have friends and I have actually been to
Cuba on several occasions when we have had emigration go through at
Guantanamo station. I have had the opportunity to talk to people who
literally walk through mine fields, literally walk through mine fields
to get to freedom. Some of the people that walked through did not make
it. It is not a movie. It is a reality of what the country is today.
We hear from movie stars who go there, the Jack Nicholsons of the
world, who idolize or make statements about Fidel Castro. I would point
my colleagues to the statement of one of our colleagues, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), who is the only Holocaust survivor in
this Chamber, who visited Cuba and talked to us and said that Cuba
today, in terms of the people, is worse than pre-Nazi Germany. That is
from his words and from his eyes. It is a country of political
prisoners. It is not the idyllic island in the Caribbean of serenity
and golf courses. It is a place of torture. It is a demon in our midst,
a demon 90 miles from our shore.
To send the message that we do not care, that we are willing to put
up with it, that we, for the first time in the history of the United
States of America, are going to back down on our commitment to freedom
would be absolutely tragic.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I rise in opposition to the Skaggs amendment which would zero out all
funding for TV Marti. The Skaggs amendment is aimed at the heart of
what is sometimes called surrogate broadcasting. An even better term is
freedom broadcasting, sending the message of freedom to people who live
in countries where this message is not permitted to be carried on
domestic radio and television stations.
The Skaggs amendment would deprive the many thousands of Cubans who
are now able to see TV Marti, despite the Castro regime's jamming of
vital information about the free world. This would not be the only
effects of the amendment. If the United States concedes defeat to
Castro, we will also be depriving millions of Cubans of the hope that
comes with knowing that the free world cares.
Eliminating freedom television broadcasting to Cuba, as the Skaggs
amendment will do, would send exactly the wrong message at exactly the
wrong time. The silencing of TV Marti would provide new hope for the
Castro dictatorship and a fresh dose of despair for the Cuban people.
The argument that TV Marti is technologically inadequate and that we
should, therefore, not fund it is designed to be a self-fulfilling
prophecy. The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights, which I chair, has examined this question in public hearings
over the last 3 years.
We discovered, in effect, that it is too soon to evaluate the success
of TV Marti because, frankly, the Clinton administration has never
really tried to make TV Marti work. The reasons TV Marti does reach
some Cubans have nothing to do with technology. They have more to do
with administrative timidity.
Right now, because of jamming by the Castro regime, TV Marti
admittedly has an audience in Havana that is probably limited to about
40,000 people. But it could also be received by many more people
outside of the Havana area, as well as by government officials and the
Communist Party elite who have access to satellite television.
It is important to let these officials know that the world is
watching them, but there is no question we can do better. I am informed
that Castro has devoted 15 to 20 powerful transmitters to jamming TV
Marti, while we employ only one transmitter to send the signal.
In the past when tyrannical regimes have jammed the Voice of America
or Radio Free Europe or Radio Liberty, we have responded to the jamming
with more powerful transmitters and
[[Page H7114]]
multiple transmission sites. When it comes to jamming and finding
solutions to jamming, we regularly defeated the Soviet Union in its
heyday.
I believe we can defeat the Castro regime, at least getting
information in. The only question is whether we have the political
will. I remind my colleagues that when the authorizing bill came up on
the floor for the foreign relations reform bill, H.R. 1757, I offered
the amendment on Radio Free Asia that would make it a 24-hour service.
It is about a third of that right now. Twenty-four hours, despite the
fact that Radio Free Asia was being jammed routinely by the Beijing
dictatorship as well as by the Hanoi dictatorship.
But we made the decision that we were going to try to overcome the
obstacles and get the message through. I happen to believe that that
can be the case if there is the political will to do so. Where there is
a will there is a way. Unfortunately, right now we are allowing this
not to get through, because we do not have that want, that ability to
push hard. Really, it is the old Washington two-step. You cripple it,
you do not do everything that you could possibly do, and then you say
it is not working.
We have yet to really try, and I remember when Radio Marti, when
Members would stand up and many of the opponents who are against it
would stand up and say it is not getting through. It is getting through
now in many instances, and I think the same will happen with TV Marti.
We have got to have the political will, and hopefully the
administration will get that soon.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just do not know what is wrong with the gentleman
from Colorado. I just do not understand why he thinks it is a waste to
spend $110 million to produce such a beautiful example of modern art.
This, as has been indicated in the debate before, is a picture of the
channel 50 as it is being jammed by Cuban authorities. This is what
Cubans are learning when they watch the TV channel which is being
jammed. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why on earth the
gentleman from Colorado thinks it is a waste of money to produce such a
gorgeous picture.
I would have to say seriously, Mr. Chairman, it is my responsibility
in this House, as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Appropriations, to review spending priorities, not just in this
subcommittee but in all 13 subcommittees across the government, and try
to decide where we must have money spent and where it would be nice to
have money spent but, nonetheless, cannot afford to have it spent. If
ever there was an area that fell into the latter category, this is it.
I would simply point out, the issue is not whether we like Mr. Castro
or not. The issue is whether or not we think it is worth spending $110
million of the taxpayers' money to get this. I do not believe it is.
I was just up in the Committee on Rules, listening to some of our
friends on the majority side explain to the Committee on Rules that we
must eliminate the low-income heating assistance program in this
country because we cannot afford to provide help to people who make
$8500 a year or less to heat their homes. I come from a State where we
have 40-below-zero winters. I do not think the people in my district
would agree with that statement.
I do not think they would think it would be better to put money here
than it would be to put it in the pockets of seniors and people making
less than $8500 a year who need help so they do not have to choose
between heating and eating.
I do not think that the young kids in this country who are going to
be denied summer youth employment would think that this is a better
investment than giving them their first experience at dealing with the
world of work.
This Capitol just came under assault a week and a half ago. I happen
to think that putting that money that is wasted on this nonsense would
be far better spent if we put it into programs to help children with
mental health problems so that they do not grow up to be the kind of
nut cakes who just attacked the Congress last week and killed two
people who gave their lives to defend the people who work in this place
or visit this place every day.
We need to make serious choices about where money goes. This, Mr.
Chairman, is not a serious choice.
Support the Skaggs amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I have
listened to the sincerity of the debate on both sides. And I simply
want to note at the beginning that I do not think that the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) really meant to characterize the efforts
of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) as being a jihad against
anything, really. At least, if he did, I consider it to be a really
unfortunate characterization.
I think the Skaggs amendment is nothing more or less than a sincere
effort to cut funding this year, some 9.4 million in this bill, for a
program which really has little demonstrable effect, however well
intentioned.
I believe, if I am not mistaken, this has been the fifth year that
the gentleman has offered such an amendment to cut TV Marti. And for
those who are concerned that he is initiating this effort in an
untimely way, that TV Marti has not had an opportunity to fix the
technical problems, I would suggest that if within 5 years we cannot
fix the technical problems associated with broadcasting TV Marti to
Cuba, then perhaps it is time to stop funding it.
Also likewise with regard to the administrative problems associated
with the program, administrative and managerial and programming
problems, the gentleman made comparisons that it took 40.6 FTEs to
produce a unit of broadcasting versus some much smaller, how much, with
regard to radio, 8 for radio for other similar kinds of broadcasting.
{time} 1630
That suggests there are some real programmatic inefficiencies, at
least, in this program. And, again, this has gone on for a long number
of years, 5 years, I know, that the gentleman has undertaken this
effort. And if in that time we cannot fix these technological, these
programmatic and these administrative and managerial problems that are
associated with TV Marti, perhaps it is time to call it quits and
consider applying this $9.4 million to some of the programs that the
distinguished ranking minority member alluded to, or other programs in
this very tight budget, such as drug courts or bulletproof vests or
school security personnel. There are lots of worthy programs in this
bill, lots of efforts that could be funded across this Nation with this
$9.4 million.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his effort
and yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. My
sense is we may not have other speakers, and I want to take a very
brief moment to close the debate, if I may.
Again, with all respect to the earnestness and the heartfelt
commitment expressed by those that oppose this amendment, I have to say
to them that we have tried and tried and tried, and this simply does
not work.
It is not, as the gentleman from New Jersey suggested a moment ago, a
question of political will. Political will cannot repeal the law of
physics, and it is the basic electronics of this that make it doomed to
failure.
To compare it with radio is to do the apples and oranges thing. Yes,
radio works, and all of the statistics cited I would not refute because
they are radio statistics, and I am not touching Radio Marti. It does
get through. Although a few years ago I criticized it and attempted to
cut funding for it, it has reformed and it is now a legitimate, worthy
operation.
I just ask my colleagues again to stop the insult to the American
taxpayer of spending $10 million year in and year out to send no-see TV
to Cuba. Stopping this will be a victory for them, not cause for
celebration for Castro, because we will continue to penetrate that
closed society with Radio Marti.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
[[Page H7115]]
Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude this debate. I know it has been
debated here this afternoon, the issue of Radio Free Marti, and the
issue of what utility it has even though there is quite a bit of
jamming going on.
I can tell my colleagues that Radio Free Marti is something that is
important to the people of Cuba, who remain faithful to the ideal that
they will someday have a democracy, and that will be based upon the
freedoms that we enjoy in this country: the freedoms of speech. But we
cannot expect that this thing is going to be born overnight. And the
only way for us to prepare a free Cuba is to be able to prepare Cuba
for the transition that it is inevitably going to make to a democracy,
and the way to do that is through the instruments of democracy, and
that is through freedom of speech.
Mr. Chairman, maybe not all of the people of Cuba are able to hear
Radio Free Marti, but there are over 40,000 who are definitely able to
tap into Radio Free Marti. And I know, from speaking to Cuban exiles
here in this country that have spoken to me about their experience in
Cuba, that they have translated to me the fact that although not
everybody in Cuba is able to receive Radio Free Marti, the fact remains
that their family members, their friends and so forth, amongst them all
someone receives it and is able to spread the word.
How do we suppose that the underground press is able to operate over
there? They are not able to operate in the current environment but for
the fact that Radio Marti helps to balance out the flow of information
that is being received by the people of Cuba. Are we supposed to give
up on the people of Cuba just because a majority of people do not get
Radio Free Marti? Are we supposed to assume that just because a
majority do not understand it and receive it, that those that do are
not spreading the word informally through the grapevine?
I think that this is an important vehicle for us to build a solid
foundation for a future relationship between the United States and
Cuba. Keep in mind, and I will conclude with this, keep in mind that
Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of the United States. Someday we hope to
enjoy a good strong relationship based upon democracy, and I should
think that this is an investment that is worth our while because there
is going to be a country that is close to us, and they are going to
look back and understand that we were with them, the people of Cuba, I
mean, all along, even though we were against their government.
I think that is the message that we want to make sure the people of
Cuba understand, is our beef is not with the people of Cuba, it is with
the Cuban government that continues, as all press have acknowledged, to
be amongst the most repressive regimes on the issue of free speech. So
I think that means even more of an obligation for us in this country to
make sure freedom of speech is not killed altogether on the island of
Cuba.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
just want to say that I associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Rhode Island. He is absolutely right. It is absolutely
imperative we defeat the Skaggs amendment and vote ``no''on it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I take note of my
colleague's comments from New York and say that I am glad that we have
finally reached some accord on some issue on this floor.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. The Kennedy-Solomon rapprochement will be noted in the
record, I am sure.
I just wanted to make sure the gentleman was aware, as he may not be,
that my amendment does not deal with Radio Marti, to which the
gentleman addressed all of his remarks. It is about TV Marti.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Excuse me. I mean to correct that. But
the point of my remarks holds true, because what I am talking about
here is the voice of democracy, whether that is TV or radio. The issue
here is making sure the message gets across to the people of Cuba, and
that is what is so fundamental here.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to
me.
So many of our colleagues have been holding up a picture, and they
say does this picture justify spending that much money on the
transmissions of TV Marti? Let me show my colleagues a few more
pictures. These are children who were killed by Castro's thugs just a
few years ago.
This is a child just a few months old. This is a child about my
daughter's age, right behind me, about 12 years of age. These were
children who were killed, massacred, by Castro's thugs because they
attempted to leave the island.
Now, this news was not broadcast on the Island of Cuba. Because of
Radio and TV Marti, people understood what these pictures meant. And
these pictures were transmitted on TV Marti airwaves. And as it has
been pointed out, these pictures have been shown to thousands of Cubans
who daily visit our U.S. interest section in Havana, thousands of
people who go there because they are waiting for visas to come to the
United States.
How about these pictures, I would say to my colleagues? What do these
pictures say? They say to me that these are people who are risking
their lives to live in freedom, to live in democracy, to live in the
best of what brought us here to this country, whether we are native
born or a naturalized American, as I am. This picture says a lot to me.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, the Cuban people are yearning to breathe
free. They are yearning for unbiased information--not communist
propaganda from the Castro regime. TV and Radio Marti provide this
medium of information to a people who are desperately seeking freedom.
The United States via TV and Radio Marti greatly assists those who
struggle for basic political and human rights everyday of their lives.
Imagine, Mr. Chairman, if you were forced to watch or listen to
controlled information that merely glorifies a communist dictator and
his policies and covers up the atrocities being inflicted on the Cuban
people. Imagine, that you were not told that your country received
resounding criticism from the international community when they
brutally shot down Americans over international waters. Imagine you
were not told that only the communist party elite were being paid in
hard currency for their work with the tourist industry while the
average Cuban citizen was paid in worthless pesos. Mr. Chairman, if TV
and Radio Marti did not report this information (the truth) the Cuban
people would be without a great resource and their quest for a
democratic nation would be severely damaged.
Mr. Chairman, lets be honest with the Cuban people and let then have
access to the real story. Defeat these amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 251, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 382]
AYES--172
Abercrombie
Allen
Baesler
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Capps
Carson
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Cummings
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Hamilton
Harman
[[Page H7116]]
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Parker
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shuster
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--251
Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Redmond
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Clay
Conyers
Cunningham
Furse
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Kilpatrick
McCarthy (MO)
McInnis
Towns
Wolf
{time} 1700
Messrs. GRAHAM, LAMPSON, SHERMAN, BILBRAY and SHIMKUS changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. PAUL, COBLE, NEUMANN and Ms. DeLAURO changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as amended, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, $25,553,000, for such purposes, to remain
available until expended, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
justice prisoner and alien transportation system fund, united states
marshals service
There is hereby established a Justice Prisoner and Alien
Transportation System Fund for the payment of necessary
expenses related to the scheduling and transportation of
United States prisoners and illegal and criminal aliens in
the custody of the United States Marshals Service, as
authorized in 18 U.S.C. 4013, including, without limitation,
salaries and expenses, operations, and the acquisition,
lease, and maintenance of aircraft and support facilities:
Provided, That the Fund shall be reimbursed or credited with
advance payments from amounts available to the Department of
Justice, other Federal agencies, and other sources at rates
that will recover the expenses of Fund operations, including,
without limitation, accrual of annual leave and depreciation
of plant and equipment of the Fund: Provided further, That
proceeds from the disposal of Fund aircraft shall be credited
to the Fund: Provided further, That amounts in the Fund shall
be available without fiscal year limitation, and may be used
for operating equipment lease agreements that do not exceed 5
years.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee has been very generous in the past 2
years in appropriating some $20 million each year to the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants program to
assist them in reaching an additional 400,000 young people each and
every year. This money has been matched at least dollar for dollar by
local sources and is sustained in the long-term by private sector
funding, including companies such as Coca-Cola, Nike, Tupperware, Major
League Baseball, Ford Motor, EDS, Taco Bell and many, many others.
With more than 2,000 local clubs serving nearly 3 million young
people, primarily in at-risk communities, this money is very well
spent.
It is an effort to provide productive activities that offer our youth
an alternative to crime.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the other body has allocated $40
million for the Boys and Girls Clubs program.
Given the increased needs of the program and its record of
achievement in outreach, will the gentleman work with me to provide
access to additional funds in the conference committee?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARCIA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this has been a worthwhile program, as the
gentleman has indicated, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman
to consider a possible increase in money within our budget limits,
which as you know are very tight.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
federal prisoner detention
For expenses, related to United States prisoners in the
custody of the United States Marshals Service as authorized
in 18 U.S.C. 4013, but not including expenses otherwise
provided for in appropriations available to the Attorney
General, $425,000,000, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 561(i), to
remain available until expended.
fees and expenses of witnesses
For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of
witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and
supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel
expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law, including advances, $95,000,000, to remain
available until expended; of which not to exceed $6,000,000
may be made available for planning, construction,
renovations, maintenance, remodeling, and repair of
buildings, and the purchase of equipment incident thereto,
for protected witness safesites; and of which not to exceed
$1,000,000 may be made available for the purchase and
maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of
protected witnesses.
salaries and expenses, community relations service
For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service,
established by title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
$6,699,000 and, in addition, up to $1,000,000 of funds made
available to the Department of Justice in this Act may be
transferred by the Attorney General to this account:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
upon a determination by the Attorney General that emergent
circumstances require additional funding for conflict
prevention and resolution activities of the Community
Relations Service, the Attorney General may transfer such
amounts to the Community Relations
[[Page H7117]]
Service, from available appropriations for the current fiscal
year for the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to
respond to such circumstances: Provided further, That any
transfer pursuant to the previous proviso shall be treated as
a reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and shall not
be available for obligation or expenditure except in
compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
On page 11, line 14, strike $6,699,000 and insert
$7,199,000.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment means a lot to
many of us and before I start, I would like to thank both the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dixon), the ranking member, the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the chairman, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for their support and because of their
understanding of the impact and the concern that is raised by this
amendment.
If we all could imagine just for a moment a dark and winding road on
a very, very dark night and the next morning finding a bloody path of
the dismembered body of James Byrd. This incident rocked not only this
Nation but it rocked the world and a town like Jasper was put in the
spotlight.
If there ever was a time that a city needed the cooperative, quiet
expertise of the Community Relations Service, possibly a little known
service of the United States Justice Department, it was certainly then
at a very difficult time in June in the State of Texas and in the city
of Jasper.
But the work of the Community Relations Service is not limited to a
tragedy like Jasper. We find that that service with limited staff goes
through this Nation to bring unity and commonality and to bring people
together after tragic events or when local officials feel that there is
no way they can handle these issues alone.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to provide additional funding to the Community
Relations Service, and I am pleased to say that this service is
receiving the recognition it deserves under the current Commerce,
Justice, State appropriations bill.
The Committee on Appropriations has generously agreed to increase CRS
funding by an additional $500,000 with an additional authorization
under the Attorney General's funding for $1 million. This goes a long
way beyond the $5.3 million presently allotted.
In May 1998, $2 million was transferred from the Assets Forfeiture
Fund under appropriations to the CRS. That added additional money. This
money, however, was specifically earmarked as a one-time-only increase
in order to enable CRS to update their archaic computer systems.
Presently CRS has only used $800,000 of those moneys and so they will
be able to use that money in addition to this amendment. But they are
still underfunded. They have worked hard in my home State around this
very crucial tragedy in Jasper, Texas.
Let me share with this body a letter dated July 13, 1998 from the
mayor of the city of Jasper, Mayor Horn:
I am writing to alert you to the excellent work of the U.S.
Department of Justice Community Relations Service in helping
to keep this community together after the tragic and brutal
murder of Mr. Byrd on June 7, 1998. As a local official in
Jasper County, I am particularly concerned about the effect
such a heinous incident can have on a community. Mr. Ephraim
V. Martinez from the Houston CRS office met with us shortly
after the tragedy and he and other CRS staff have been there
practically every day since then meeting with all segments of
our community in providing valuable support. CRS was also
with us as we made preparations for the recent rallies by the
KKK and the New Black Panther Party. In August CRS will be
providing diversity and conflict management training to
school district personnel and later to students, and in
addition they will be helping us to fund and to organize a
citywide community task force to deal with these racial
concerns.
CRS was crucial in helping the community begin healing during the
aftermath of Mr. Byrd's tragic death and as well they worked very hard
during the recent rallies opposing the KKK.
Mr. Chairman, I can say to Members, I was there along with my
colleagues from Texas and particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner) who represents that area, during these troubling times. We saw
the tension, the pain, the dismay, and CRS was on the ground helping
that community to heal. They were not fearful, they were not
hysterical, they were calm. And the local officials welcomed them into
their community. They brought together all kinds of people, in prayer,
in deliberation and, yes, in resolution. CRS services are sought by
mayors, police chiefs, school superintendents and civic leaders.
Mr. Chairman, is it not true an important part of the Federal
Government is to coalesce with those individuals in local government to
make better what is bad? The Community Relations Service helps to bring
about racial harmony over racial disharmony.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. But yet in all of that, we find that CRS
has had to deny over 40 percent of the applicants who have wanted them
to come in and assist in promoting racial harmony. We have also found
that they have helped in communities that suffered the rage of Church
arson burnings.
CRS has a staff that is overworked. With this increased funding, I
hope CRS can increase staff and go out into new areas and bring about
the racial harmony, the ethnic harmony, the religious harmony that this
Nation truly agrees with.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, that I thank those who have assisted me in
this amendment and ask that we realize the importance of the Community
Relations Service and provide this additional funding so that they may
do their job well.
(On request of Mr. Dixon, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DIXON. I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman for this
excellent amendment. The testimony by the Attorney General of the
United States is that CRS does excellent work. Her amendment will
certainly add to the efficiency of the organization. I would urge the
chairman and the ranking member to accept this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. I am prepared to accept the amendment. I think it is an
excellent amendment and would be prepared to accept it, but I would
hope that we could do that very quickly, because we do have much more
business to attend to. Can we agree and let this be the end of it?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from
Kentucky would be so kind, because he has been kind, I know we had a
very vigorous debate, if he would allow three speakers who have been
waiting here for three hours to speak and contain their remarks in
maybe five minutes, because I am told they will be very brief, I would
ask his indulgence because some of them have had personal experience
with the CRS, and then we would be happy to close at that point.
Mr. ROGERS. The gentlewoman has three speakers?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes. And I believe, I do not want to speak
for them, but I believe they may be able to summarize in that time
frame of the five minutes.
City of Jasper,
Jasper, TX, July 13, 1998.
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Lee: Let me first of all express my appreciation
for being with us during the funeral services for James Byrd,
Jr. on June 13, 1998, and for your continued support.
I am writing to alert you to the excellent work of the U.S.
Department of Justice, Community Relations Service (CRS) in
helping to keep this community together after the tragic and
brutal murder of Mr. Byrd on June 7, 1998. As a local
official in Jasper County, I am particularly concerned about
the effect such a heinous incident can have on a community.
Mr. Efrain V. Martinez from the Houston CRS office met with
us shortly after the tragedy, and he and other CRS staff have
been here practically every day since then, meeting with all
segments of our community
[[Page H7118]]
and providing valuable support. CRS was also with us as we
made preparations for the recent rallies by the KKK and the
New Black Panther Party. In August, CRS will be providing
diversity and conflict management training to school district
personnel, and later to students.
CRS staff is currently working with us in convening a
permanent, city-wide community task force to deal with racial
concerns and other matters that have surfaced as a result of
the tragedy. The task force will be under my office, and will
be called the Mayor's Community Task Force ``2000''.
CRS is a unique arm of the Federal government, charged with
helping communities address tensions which arise due to
differences in race, ethnicity and national origin. While
cases like the incident in Japser grab the media headlines
and shock the nation, CRS responds to similar incidents,
large and small, across the country. I also have become aware
of the excellent work CRS did to resolve tensions between
Vietnamese fishermen and the KKK on the Texas coast, and the
issues between Vietnamese store operators and African-
American communities in Houston, and blacks and police issues
in Austin. Last year, it also convened church arson
prevention seminars in several Texas cities, including
Houston and San Antonio. Earlier this year, it conducted hate
crimes training for police officers, and police executives in
the Houston area and in Corpus Christi.
In recent years, CRS has struggled to maintain adequate
funding. In FY 1998, CRS suffered massive budget reductions
which cut the agency in half. With a modest budget of $5.3
million, CRS now has the smallest staff in its history.
I am asking you, as an elected representative of our great
state, to help support the Community Relations Services
(CRS). President Clinton has requested funding for CRS at
$8.9 million for 1999. This represents a small investment
given CRS' valuable and critical work in communities across
America. We here in Japser certainly appreciate its
assistance.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
R.C. Horn,
Mayor.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman be given three minutes to yield as she sees fit.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object. We can get the gentlewoman
time, but these other speakers have been waiting. Under the five-minute
rule they have a right to strike the last word and have their own time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. ROGERS. Then I am not so sure we need to agree to this amendment.
If there is going to be an objection on the time allocation of this
strict a nature, then perhaps we need to renegotiate the whole thing,
so I withdraw my approval of the amendment.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take but a second because I certainly do not
want to threaten my colleagues' time with this wonderful amendment. But
I want to stand because of the fact that I am very well acquainted with
the work of the CRS.
{time} 1715
I come from an area that has had several racial conflicts, and if it
were not for the intervention of the CRS, much could have happened that
did not. They come in in a professional way, they work with the groups
there, they work with the agencies, they work with the people on the
street, and it is always good to have a Federal presence in the
neighborhood and in the community when violence or conflict happens.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should realize that this is an important
service that the Department of Justice gives, and it is always good for
people to see both sides of the Department of Justice, not just the
enforcement side but the preventive side. When they come in and help to
have some of the conflict resolved, it is extremely important, and they
do not come in and try to work alone. They work with the enforcement
agencies that are already in those communities.
I am from Miami, Florida. I have seen CRS work, and I do hope,
because they have accepted this amendment, I think the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his committee have done a credible job of
accepting this amendment because it is good and it is needed.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I support this amendment.
Clearly, they have been extremely responsive. I made a request Monday
following the funeral, spoke very personally to the Director of the FBI
as well as Ms. Ochi, who is the National Director of CRS. They have
come to give dates, and they will continue to work in that community,
and they have been responsive not only for that community but for
communities all over the Nation.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not intend to prolong the time. As a
matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the agreement would, in
fact, stand, that this amendment be accepted. I simply rise because it
is such an important concept; that is, the concept of resolving
conflict, not just letting it lay, not letting it go, not hoping that
things are going to work out but actually putting resources together to
help work them out. I think that is an important concept, and I would
certainly hope that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) would
continue to hold in terms of the agreement to accept the amendment.
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to encourage the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to allow this free and open dialogue concerning
the good work of CRS to go forward. One of the healthy things about the
American democracy is that people do have an opportunity of free
speech, open and healthy debate and dialogue, in support of their views
and opinions, and I would trust that we would not in any way interrupt
that in this very beautiful process called the United States Congress.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has offered a very
potent amendment. We cannot ignore the problem of the lingering racism
in our society in recent months. We have seen racism expressed in
violent and grizzly fashion. The Nation was horrified when James Byrd
was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck in Jasper, Texas, just
because he was African American. The Community Relations Service played
a key role in keeping the community of Jasper together after this
tragic incident and prevented the spread of more violent racial
incidents.
Mr. Chairman, CRS services help local communities prevent racial
conflicts and violence, and I would trust that we would continue to
ensure that the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) is in fact upheld for this vital and necessary and humanitarian
endeavor.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Community Relations Service
and the Jackson-Lee amendment. As many of my colleagues know, Jasper,
Texas, located in my congressional district, experienced a terrible
racially-motivated crime when James Byrd, Jr., was brutally dragged
from the back of a pickup by three white men identified with white
supremacy groups. For all of us who believe that racial prejudice and
hatred have no place in American society, this tragic event serves as a
reminder of how much is left to be done.
Shortly after Mr. Byrd's death my fellow congressional colleagues and
I passed a resolution asking that we join together to eliminate the
vestiges of racial hatred remaining in our society. Now we have a
chance to put our money where our mouth is.
Mr. Chairman, the Community Relations Service has done an outstanding
job in keeping the community together in Jasper after the tragic and
brutal murder of James Byrd on June 7 of this year. Mr. Efrain Martinez
from the Houston CRS office met with Mayor R.C. Horn and community
leaders in Jasper immediately after the tragedy, and he and other CRS
staff have been there practically every day since, meeting with all
segments of the community of Jasper, providing needed support.
CRS worked with the community as they made preparations for the
recent rallies of the Ku Klux Klan and the new Black Panther party.
Later this month CRS will be providing diversity and conflict
management training to school district personnel, and later to
students. CRS staff is currently working with Jasper in convening a
permanent city-wide community task force
[[Page H7119]]
to deal with racial concerns and other matters that have surfaced as a
result of this senseless tragedy. The task force will be headed by
Mayor R.C. Horn and will be called the Mayor's Community Task Force
2000.
CRS is a unique arm of the Federal Government charged with helping
communities address tensions which may arise due to differences in
race, ethnicity or national origin. Without CRS assistance, unresolved
community racial tensions and conflict can fester and become fuel for
even more serious community-wide civil unrest.
While cases like the incident in Jasper grab the media headlines and
shock the Nation, CRS is responsible for dealing with similar
incidents, large and small, all across this country. I am aware of the
excellent work that CRS has done in my home State of Texas to resolve
tensions between Vietnamese fishermen and the Ku Klux Klan. They have
also worked to resolve issues between Vietnamese store operators and an
African American community in Houston, and to deal with problems
between the police and African Americans in Austin. Last year CRS also
convened church arson prevention seminars in several Texas cities,
including Houston and San Antonio. Earlier this year it conducted hate
crimes training for police officers and police executives in the
Houston and Corpus Christi areas.
In recent years CRS has struggled to maintain adequate funding. In
fiscal year 1998 this valuable organization suffered massive budget
reductions which cut the agency in half. With a modest budget of $5.3
million, CRS now has the smallest staff in its history.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)
asks for another $2 million to bring CRS' budget to the $9 million
recommended by the President. This represents a small investment given
the valuable and critical work of CRS in communities all across our
country. I know the citizens of Jasper, Texas who have pulled together
in this time of tragedy, in these trying circumstances, appreciate the
assistance that they received from CRS. Let us renew our commitment to
root out racial prejudice in our society, to bring our Nation together.
Let us remember James Byrd's death.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give CRS the additional $2
million that it needs to carry out its valuable work.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and,
as I expressed, we were actually on the ground in Jasper to see how
that community was brought together, and I think it is important to
note that Texas does not stand as the poster child for these kinds of
heinous acts. CRS goes all over the Nation fighting for those who have
been discriminated against and where there is racial strife.
We have seen the increase in hate crimes against African Americans,
against Hispanics, against gays and lesbians, against Anglos, against
those who have different religious faith. The CRS is able to go in and
to ease the pain of that community, and I just want to note what the
gentleman said: Between 1992 and 1997 the CRS budget declined more than
80 percent and its staffing by two-thirds, an all time low.
So I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his kind words
on helping to support an amendment that provides an extra $500,000 for
this service.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
assets forfeiture fund
For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(A)(ii), (B),
(F), and (G), as amended, $23,000,000, to be derived from the
Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.
Radiation Exposure Compensation
administrative expenses
For necessary administrative expenses in accordance with
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, $2,000,000.
Interagency Law Enforcement
interagency crime and drug enforcement
For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation,
and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime
drug trafficking not otherwise provided for, to include
intergovernmental agreements with State and local law
enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug
trafficking, $304,014,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That any amounts
obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used
under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed
from this appropriation: Provided further, That any
unobligated balances remaining available at the end of the
fiscal year shall revert to the Attorney General for
reallocation among participating organizations in succeeding
fiscal years, subject to the reprogramming procedures
described in section 605 of this Act.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution
of crimes against the United States; including purchase for
police-type use of not to exceed 2,688 passenger motor
vehicles, of which 2,000 will be for replacement only,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor
vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under
the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the
certificate of, the Attorney General, $2,750,615,000; of
which not to exceed $50,000,000 for automated data processing
and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment
and not to exceed $1,000,000 for undercover operations shall
remain available until September 30, 2000; of which not less
than $282,473,000 shall be for counterterrorism
investigations, foreign counterintelligence, and other
activities related to our national security; of which not to
exceed $69,846,000 shall remain available until expended, of
which not to exceed $8,046,000 shall be for equipment to
address chemical and biological attacks; of which not to
exceed $10,000,000 is authorized to be made available for
making advances for expenses arising out of contractual or
reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement
agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to
violent crime, terrorism, organized crime, and drug
investigations; and of which $1,500,000 shall be available to
maintain an independent program office dedicated solely to
the automation of fingerprint identification services:
Provided, That not to exceed $45,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That no funds in this Act may be used to provide
ballistics imaging equipment to any State or local authority
which has obtained similar equipment through a Federal grant
or subsidy unless the State or local authority agrees to
return that equipment or to repay that grant or subsidy to
the Federal Government.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Souder:
Page 13, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
Page 15, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $6,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
Page 30, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
Page 43, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $21,579,000)''.
Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,600,000)''.
Mr. SOUDER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises the funding for drug
court programs by an additional $6 million over the amount currently
contained in the bill, which we also just added $3 million to a little
while ago in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Ensign). Although the committee should be commended for providing a $10
million increase plus the $3 million that were accepted over last
year's level and the President's request for drug courts, I believe
that the demand and social and economic benefits of the program justify
an even larger increase.
There is no greater issue in our society than our war against illegal
drugs. It is both a war and, as our drug czar said, a cancer, and we
need creative solutions to address this.
I want to commend the chairman of this subcommittee who has been a
leader in the drug task force, the Anti-Drug Task Force, as we work
towards a drug-free America, and for his willingness to increase, as he
has pointed out
[[Page H7120]]
with this amendment, a 33 percent increase in drug courts in this
country. However, we also have already pending requests that are 50
percent higher.
One of the problems that we go through in appropriations bills are
tough choices, and this amendment offers such a tough choice. The
increase in drug court funding in my amendment would be provided by
reducing the bill's increases in funding for the Economic Development
Administration to a 2 percent increase to account for inflation.
Let me say that again. We are not eliminating EDA, we are not
decreasing EDA. The money would come only by reducing the bill's 18.9
percent increase in salaries and expenses in EDA and the 8.4 percent
increase in grants to a 2 percent level of inflation. In my view, any
increase over and above the level of inflation is not appropriate in
light of the health of the economy, the reservations about the
effectiveness of EDA, and this opportunity to put more money into drug
courts.
Now let me once again explain a little bit about drug courts. They
are used to place nonviolent drug defendants in judicially supervised
treatment programs. A drug court is a successful alternative to placing
drug users in overcrowded jails, where in all likelihood they will
serve little time and receive no form of substance abuse treatment. We
recently heard testimony in the Subcommittee on National Security, of
which I am vice chairman, that individuals who were referred to drug
treatment programs through drug courts and other parts of the criminal
justice system stayed in treatment significantly longer than referrals
from other sources.
The success of drug courts has been in part demonstrated by the
dramatic increase in the number of courts across the Nation. Since 1989
more than 275 jurisdictions have implemented a drug court to address
the problem of substance abuse in crime. Currently there are another
150 drug courts being planned and another 13 jurisdictions are
exploring the feasibility of these drug courts.
Drug court participants and graduates are not rearrested. The
recidivism rate for drug court participants and graduates ranges from 2
to 20 percent, far below that in any other drug program. Drug court
participants and graduates break their addictions. The average positive
urinalysis test while in drug court is only 15 percent. In some
jurisdictions, such as San Jose, California, it is as low as 7 percent,
significantly lower.
Drug courts also have saved the lives of innocent babies. Five
hundred twenty-five drug-free babies have been born to participants of
drug courts. They reunite families. Over 2,430 parents regained custody
of their children. Drug courts help former addicts become constructive
members of society. Seventy-five percent of drug court graduates either
retain or obtain employment.
{time} 1730
The important thing to remember here is that all across the country,
in many jurisdictions, including in my hometown of Fort Wayne, where
Ron Davenport, the head of the Washington House, has indicated that the
Drug Court program works because it provides a simple motivation to
participants. If they do not cooperate, they go to jail. But it also
moves them into treatment programs and creative ways to do this.
It has been demonstrated, as I said, in my home area. There is
another 50 percent increase waiting to come into this system, and
conversely, there seems little need to provide significant increases to
EDA when the country continues to enjoy strong economic growth. My
amendment would only reduce the increases to the level of inflation.
This is not an attempt to eliminate EDA.
I know there are many supporters in Congress for EDA. The question
is, should EDA be increased more than 2 percent, or should that money
go to Drug Courts? I believe, given the nature of the problems that we
face in every Congressional district in this country, in families
across this country, whether it be in direct crime, in property, or
violence or internal family violence caused by drug and alcohol abuse,
Drug Courts are an area where we should boost up.
As I said earlier, this is a matter of priority. Where would you put
your money? To the increased funding in EDA, or to the increased
funding in Drug Courts, which I grant has gone up, but is not going up
enough to meet the demand.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there he goes again, and here we go again. An amendment
plain and simple to severely cut funding for the Economic Development
Administration. I strongly urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a vote about whether or not you support the
Drug Court program. We support the Drug Court program in this bill at
an unprecedented historic level. We already provide tremendous
increases for Drug Courts. In fact, the bill includes a 43 percent
increase above current level spending, and well above the
Administration's request for the Drug Court program. In fact, a few
minutes ago there was an amendment that passed this House with our
approval that increased Drug Courts even more, another $3 million, by
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).
Make no mistake about it. What this debate really is all about is
whether or not you support EDA. This debate we have had over and over
again, year after year on this bill, and every time this House has
stood fast with those who want to help the most distressed portions of
the country, even in these good times.
Once again, last year, an overwhelming majority, 305 Members to be
exact, voted to support the work of the EDA. Again this year, I urge
the House to continue to show support for this important program and
again vote to defeat the Souder amendment.
If we do not vote this amendment down, we will be depriving hard-hit
communities in every State in this Nation of the vital assistance these
programs provide. EDA gives our poorest urban and rural areas the tools
with which to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps to create new
jobs, expand their local tax base and leverage private investment. It
gives them a hand, not a handout, and, Mr. Chairman, this program
works.
If your town is hard hit by sudden and severe job losses when a plant
shuts down, it is EDA that is there to help. If your community has been
devastated by a natural disaster, like the recent floods this year in
the Midwest, EDA is there. If your community is suffering because your
local factory has shut down because it cannot compete in the global
economy, EDA can help your community. And if your district has suffered
from cutbacks in the defense industry, EDA is the only federal program
dedicated to helping your community retool that economy.
Critics of this program fail to recognize that the EDA has been
reformed, reduced and streamlined over these last 3 years by actions of
this Congress. Due to this Congressional oversight by both the
authorizing and appropriations committees, EDA's grants are truly
targeted to the most distressed areas. The development and selection of
projects has been moved out of Washington and back towards the local
and state levels, and EDA's bureaucracy has been cut by over one-third
since 1995.
In addition, since the vote last year the House has continued to
demonstrate its support for EDA programs. On July 23, your colleagues
in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved an EDA
reauthorizing bill that reforms the programs and responds to past
criticisms of the program and tracks this appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, clearly there are communities that do not need help.
They have infrastructure, they have industry, they have access to
education, all the requirements for a healthy regional economy. But
other areas, Mr. Chairman, like my area, must rely on us and EDA to
help them cope with job losses, defense cuts and other economic
disasters. They are the ones that need our help. They are the ones who
are turning to us for this vote.
So I urge Members to do as they did last year and the year before and
the year before and the year before, and turn down this amendment by an
overwhelming margin. Vote down the Souder amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from
Indiana's
[[Page H7121]]
amendment, and I echo the sentiments of our chairman, ``there you go
again.''
Mr. Chairman, this amendment presents a truly false choice between
the EDA and Drug Courts. It is the oldest game I guess in Congress,
that if you want to cut a program and you are having difficulty making
your case on the merits, then try to find a place to put that cut that
will be compelling and bolster your argument because of the nature of
the account that you want to increase.
I know that our colleagues will not be fooled by that. This amendment
would cut $21.579 million, almost, almost, the entire increase provided
above last year's level, from the Economic Development Administration's
grant programs. Additionally, it also cuts $3 million from EDA's
salaries and expenses account.
In considering this amendment, we must first examine why an increase
for EDA was provided by the committee. In its fiscal year 1999 budget
request, the administration proposed a new $15 million initiative
within EDA, and they paid for it by decreasing funding for EDA's
existing grant programs by $22 million and increasing total funding for
the agency by $28 million.
This new program was designed to provide assistance to communities
adversely impacted by trade agreements. The committee considered this
request and decided that while the intent of the new initiative was
worthwhile, EDA's existing grant programs could achieve the best
results.
To this end, the committee accepted the administration's proposal to
increase overall funding for the agency and allocated that increase to
EDA's proven programs, which clearly have the jurisdiction and the
ability to best assist trade impacted communities.
This is a very worthwhile investment. In fact, a 1997 study of the
public works program conducted by Rutgers University and the New Jersey
Institute of Technology, among others, yielded the following results:
For every $1 million in Federal funding provided for EDA's public works
grants program, 327 jobs are created or retained at a cost of only
$3,058 per job. For every $1 million in Federal funding provided
through the grant program, $10.8 million in private sector investment
was leveraged and the local tax base was increased by $10.13 million. I
think those are pretty good results, pretty impressive results, on our
investment.
Mr. Chairman, I know of no other agency or program of the Federal
Government more critical to the economic development needs of
communities around this Nation than EDA. EDA programs target funds to
areas in need of assistance and respond to the special needs of each
individual town and city.
EDA has programs which benefit communities at almost every stage of
the development process. For communities experiencing structural
economic change resulting from long-term deterioration in industrial
sectors or the depletion of natural resources, as my area, EDA provides
flexible assistance to help them design and implement their own local
recovery strategies. For communities facing prolonged economic
distress, EDA provides the funding necessary to repair decaying
infrastructure and to develop the new infrastructure which business
needs to grow.
For the communities faced with the massive job losses associated with
defense downsizing, EDA provides the funding to develop projects at the
local level that support community redevelopment priorities.
EDA's grant and technical assistance programs really work. Any of my
colleagues can look around their districts and point to economic
success stories catalyzed by EDA funding.
So, does EDA warrant an increase? I say yes. Economic development is
a local process with a specific appropriate Federal role. EDA, in
direct partnership with distressed communities, provides seed funding
that promotes long-term investments that respond to locally defined
economic priorities.
It is clear that EDA is in need of additional resources to deal with
adverse economic effects on trade-impacted communities, among other
things. That is what this money is for, and I urge defeat of this ill-
advised amendment.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I
understand why we need more money in Drug Courts. I support the
concept, but not transferring $250 million from EDA. That is not the
way it is supposed to be done.
Let me tell you what the EDA has been doing. EDA was created to
assist those distressed communities impacted by different cutbacks and
base closures. In those poor distressed areas, they have been highly
successful in creating jobs in those poor areas.
In addition to the fine job they have done, we have made major
reforms this year. One is called the Federal Loan Guarantee Program,
which gives local governments tools to stretch out the dollars to
several times more so they can attract better private financing
portfolios to be able to build more public works projects, in turn
creating permanent jobs.
Second, we create what is called pockets of poverty areas, so we can
look at pockets of small distressed areas, rather than on a regional
bases. That program has already been implemented, and I appreciate the
committee chairman for this. This idea has been thoroughly evaluated by
the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIM. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to correct, for the record,
it is a $25 million reduction out of the increase. There is still a 2
percent increase.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this cut would amount to an immediate loss in the
communities of 7,000 jobs, and, after 6 years, that 7,000 jobs would
create another loss of 7,000.
The Drug Courts are needed. The gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman
Rogers) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have in
fact increased the dollar amount for the Drug Courts. But there are
several reasons why this amendment should be defeated.
Number one, an administrator over there by the name of Phil Singerman
has done an absolutely outstanding job. The committee has had a number
of hearings, and an EDA authorization bill finally has a chance for the
light of day, which will make some significant changes.
First of all, the country, 80 percent of this Nation, is eligible for
EDA money. The committee feels that, in many cases, distressed
communities that really need the help are being overlooked. The change
has been made in only 36 percent of the country, that the truly
distressed areas will be eligible.
Second of all, there is a new program created with the limited EDA
funds. Monies will now be used to buy down interest rates when the
banks and savings and loans invest in their own communities.
{time} 1745
For the first time we are partnering with and have participatory
programs that are leveraging more and more private money back into
community development. Finally, it was brought up by the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) also the aspects of international trade
and job loss, because international trade is also now being addressed
by EDA, and those communities that are suffering a loss of jobs from
displacements due to international trade are now being addressed.
I would just like to say one other thing. I come over here to the
floor and I watch these bills go through with a million dollars for
Bosnia, billions of dollars for Russia, billions of dollars for
proposals all over the world. But when we try and get a little increase
for economically depressed communities, we find literally a number of
excellent places to supposedly put this money.
I will support more money for drug courts. The committee has already
increased those accounts, and there was already an amendment they
accepted to further embellish the account, but not from the people in
the communities who are being left behind.
I am asking Members to understand this issue. This is a jobs issue.
This is
[[Page H7122]]
a fairness issue. It will impact upon the people we are concerned about
the most.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
As someone who opposed NAFTA and Bosnia, opposed money for Bosnia, I
appreciate the gentleman's comments. I do wish the Record to show that
it is tough to be eliminating 7,000 jobs, since the money has not been
spent yet. It may keep us, in the gentleman's opinion, from creating
those jobs.
Secondly, this is not a cut, it is a reduction of the increase.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I did vote against
NAFTA, I did vote against GATT. I say to the gentleman, I am going to
stone cold vote no against the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would note that it is a bit of
technicality to suggest it is not a cut because it already has not
passed. This legislation is about become law, and if the gentleman's
amendment were passed, it would be a significant cut in the 1999
appropriation.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of
bills with a lot of discussion on this floor. There are 13 bills to
become law. This is one of them. If this amendment passes, it will
ultimately cut 14,000 jobs, pursuant to the hearings we held.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will now rise informally to receive a
message.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania) assumed the
chair.
____________________