[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.

                          ____________________