[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 108 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7122-H7148]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Oklahoma rise?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, Will Rogers said that government programs have three 
things in common: a beginning, middle, and no end. That is true of the 
EDA.
  I will include for the Record a letter from Mr. Orson Swindle, who 
was Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development under 
President Reagan from 1985 to 1989. I will enter this entire document 
in the Record, but I will quote from it, that the findings of many 
people would be as follows:

       EDA's development functions duplicate the activities of 
     programs within the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Interior, as well as the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission, Small Business 
     Administration, Federal Emergency Agency, and Tennessee 
     Valley Authority. On these grounds alone, the program ought 
     to be eliminated.

  We are not proposing to eliminate the program. As a matter of fact, 
we are proposing to limit the increase to that which is adjusted for 
inflation. We also are very much opposed to a 19 percent increase in 
administrative overhead for this program, where in fact this agency has 
not proved its need for that.
  Let us be clear what this amendment is about. It is not about cutting 
EDA, it is about increasing EDA, just not increasing it as much. It is 
about limiting the increase in the overhead for the administration of 
EDA. Why would we want to do that? Because we know that our discussions 
on appropriations bills are about priorities. We know where the savings 
are.
  The other thing we might also know is that as far as EDA's charge, we 
seem to have been in this past year in one of the greatest times of our 
productivity, success, industrial growth rate, increase in standard of 
living that this country has seen. Yet, in 90 percent of our 
communities, EDA is active because there is supposedly a problem with 
lack of jobs in all of those communities.
  I do not deny that there are significant areas in our country that 
have a need for EDA grant money, but not 90 percent of the country.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, first of all, that Mr. 
Swindle, who is a very fine gentlemen, had these very strong views 
about EDA before he came to, I believe, head the agency, did he not?
  Mr. COBURN. I am sorry?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I was suggesting that Orson Swindle, to whom the 
gentleman alluded, I believe he headed EDA at one point in time.
  Mr. COBURN. I do not know that he actually headed it. He was 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that he had these strong 
views about EDA before he came to the job. I just remember that.
  The gentleman mentioned the Tennessee Valley Authority and the 
Department of Agriculture as agencies one could go to who had duplicate 
programs with EDA. I would ask the gentleman, what were the other 
agencies?
  Mr. COBURN. The other agencies that had duplicative functions?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. That duplicated the authorization.
  Mr. COBURN. The Appalachian Regional Commission, the Small Business 
Administration, the Federal Emergency Agency, the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, the Departments of Defense, Housing and Urban Development, 
Interior, and the Department of Agriculture all have programs that are 
duplicated by EDA in one form or another.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would not hold myself out as an expert 
on EDA, but we do an awful lot of EDA projects in our district, 
unfortunately because we qualify under the criteria. Just standing here 
right now, I cannot think of one EDA project we have going where we 
could have gone to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, I think the defining words are that 
there would be a consensus that there are many programs duplicated by 
the EDA. That may not be the case in the gentleman's particular 
district.
  Let us talk about drug courts, reclaiming my time. Drug courts offer 
us tremendous savings, and there are some real data that needs to be 
shared with our body. They open up prison space for violent offenders. 
Most State and local jails as well as Federal jails are operating above 
capacity. This is largely due to the high number of incarcerated drug 
offenders, many of whom are nonviolent.
  Drug courts provide a structured alternative to prison for those 
nonviolent offenders. Not only does this program save money, it helps 
to ensure that adequate prison space is available to house the most 
violent offenders in our society.
  I want to give the gentleman some savings from drug courts from some 
of the areas across the country. Denver, Colorado, saves between $1.8 
and $2.5 million per year because of drug courts; Phoenix, Arizona, 
reported this last year a saving of $112,000.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
has expired.

[[Page H7123]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. COBURN was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, Washington, D.C. saves between $4,000 and 
$9,000 per participant; Bartow, Florida, saves $531,000; Gainesville, 
$200,000; Kalamazoo, Michigan, $300,000; Klamath Falls, Oregon, 
$86,000; Beaumont, Texas, saves half a million dollars annually because 
of drug courts.
  This is not about cutting the EDA. It is about limiting its growth 
and prioritizing our resources into something that makes a difference 
in the lives of people.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from Mr. Swindle.
  The letter referred to is as follows:
                                                   August 3, 1998.
     Representative Tom Colburn,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Coburn: As President Reagan's Assistant 
     Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development from 1985-
     1989, I strongly support your amendment to the FY 1999 
     Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill that will cut 
     $25 million from the Economic Development Administration 
     (EDA).
       EDA is one of those examples of a dedicated group of 
     federal employees being trapped in a bad system and being 
     manipulated by political decision-making, which too often has 
     ignored the legal basis and criteria for the agency's 
     existence and operation. A small example...
       As you know, EDA was created in 1965 as part of President 
     Johnson's Great Society. Its original aim was to assist in 
     the economic development of depressed areas and encourage job 
     creation (in theory) through government loans and grants. Of 
     course, the funds given to one region has to be taken from 
     another. A program was established to fund small regions of 
     the country (in cities or groups counties) as ``economic 
     development districts.'' These areas, buy definition being 
     under severe economic distress (high unemployment, 
     underemployment, job losses, low average income, etc.,) would 
     receive funding to assist in hiring staff to work on economic 
     development planning with local communities. One aspect of 
     the staffing assistance was that frequently the staff became 
     an advocate for more federal funding, not an uncommon 
     phenomena within EDA programs where federal funds directly or 
     indirectly go toward lobbying for more federal funds.
       I believe it was Will Rogers who once commented that all 
     government programs have three things in common: a beginning 
     , a middle and no end. For years now, EDA has apparently 
     considered the vast majority of the continental United States 
     (maybe as high as 90%) to be under severe economic distress--
     even today in what is widely proclaimed as the period of our 
     greatest prosperity. Funded ``economic development 
     districts'' continue to cover the map!
       I can speak from personal knowledge on the belief that EDA 
     has strayed from its original mission and has been for some 
     time simply a cookie jar for pork barrel projects, many of 
     which have become infamous.
       Last year, The Heritage Foundation authorized a compelling 
     book entitled ``Ending the Era of Big Government.'' They 
     argued that:
       ``EDA's development functions duplicate the activities of 
     programs within the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Interior, as well as the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission, Small Business 
     Administration, Federal Emergency Agency, and Tennessee 
     Valley Authority. On these grounds alone, the program should 
     be eliminated.''
       I couldn't have said it better myself. Some of these 
     agencies definitely could be eliminated. For all of the 
     reasons put forth above, I endorse your amendment to cut 
     EDA's funding by $25 million at a minimum. I urge every 
     Member of the House to support your effort.
           Sincerely,

                                                Orson Swindle,

                                     Former Assistant Secretary of
                                Commerce for Economic Development.

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment should be defeated adamantly. 
First of all, they have mixed up the nomenclature, the language that we 
understand here in the House. They have said that ``this amendment does 
not cut EDA, it is a reduction of an increase.'' I think they are 
playing on our intelligence with this kind of description of what they 
are saying.
  There is an old adage or dictum that says if it walks like a duck, 
quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. So what they are doing by 
reducing the increase, the logical result of that is a decrease in EDA.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the committee, including 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), have come up with a 
logical allocation for EDA; not as much as we think the need is, but as 
much as they could logically place there. I am strongly opposed to this 
amendment, because what they have done is asked for a reduction which 
would cut $25 million from EDA.
  This is EDA's job development or job creation program. If the 
gentleman can tell us, look, we are going to reduce their job creation 
capacity, but we are going to replace their job creation capacity with 
some other initiative, they have not done that, which leads me to 
conclude that they are not interested in job creation and people 
getting jobs so they can improve their quality of life in this country.
  I support their efforts to fund the drug court. I think drug courts 
are good, but the committee has increased them by $4 million in the 
current budget.
  Why should we provide more than a 2 percent increase in EDA? People 
need to understand that EDA does need an increase. Number one, it 
creates jobs mostly in economically underdeveloped cities, cities and 
communities in this country. There is no other agency that does that 
overall, other than EDA. We cannot replace their capacity by putting 
their funding, or reducing them, putting it into drug courts.
  This amendment would cost our distressed communities more than 7,000 
jobs. My challenge to the supporters of this amendment is to show us 
how they can replace them. We cannot afford to lose these jobs.
  I want the Congress to do just as they have done every year. Each 
year we come back and stand here and oppose this amendment. Sooner or 
later, the supporters of this amendment will find out they are shooting 
up the wrong tree, because we cannot see our cities devastated or our 
communities distressed because there are no jobs.
  I am asking, please, that we support the committee, and strongly 
oppose the Souder amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say for the record that I have 
supported efforts in the Small Business Administration to provide help 
for low-income economic development, I have supported the High Hope 
Scholarship as we move to higher ed, to make sure there are 
opportunities for those who are lower-income to get the education they 
need, to move dollars needed through our committees.
  I have supported the Community Services block grant, and Head Start. 
I have supported numerous programs targeted, including an amendment 
that I sponsored on individual development accounts for capital 
formation in low-income families.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I may take back my time, I 
want to give the gentleman sort of a short answer. SBA does well when 
one can get a loan from them, but these are not loans, these are 
grants. There is a difference, when it comes to rebuilding distressed 
communities.
  I applaud the efforts the gentleman has made in the past and what the 
gentleman has supported, but I do not applaud this amendment, because 
what the gentleman is doing is cutting an agency that provides jobs. 
That is the difference.
  Mr. SOUDER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, a GAO study 
concluded that there was no survey that in fact showed that, on net, 
EDA created additional jobs.
  One last point is, would the gentlewoman agree that even under my 
amendment, EDA would increase 2 percent? In other words, does the 
gentlewoman agree that even if my amendment passes, EDA will still 
increase 2 percent?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Even if it passes? I do not know, but I will 
yield to the ranking member to answer the gentleman's question. I do 
not have the answer to that.
  I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment merely because I know, 
common sense tells me, if we reduce the increase, then we are cutting 
the gain.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, there are numerous speakers on both sides. 
I

[[Page H7124]]

think all of us have heard most of the arguments.
  I ask unanimous consent that we limit debate, further debate, to 10 
minutes, to be divided evenly between the sides.

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Ten minutes between an 
opponent and proponent of the amendment.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  As a member of the Speaker's antidrug task force, I count myself 
among the many Members of this body who have committed themselves to 
this Nation's war against the scourge of illegal drug use, particularly 
its spread among our youth. Over the past year, I am proud to say that 
all 22 counties in the Second District of Kentucky have established 
community coalitions that have accepted the challenge to take on the 
daunting problem of fighting illegal drugs.
  Let me suggest that attempts to reduce the financial resources 
available to the Economic Development Administration is 
counterproductive to the interests of these very same communities, 
particularly those areas that are dealing with the adverse effects of 
lost jobs in our textile industries and other parts of Kentucky that 
have not benefited from our country's successive years of prosperity. 
One of the most cost-effective tools we can employ today to encourage 
job growth and improved opportunities in our towns and communities 
which have been left behind.
  To quote one official who oversees one of my district's area 
development organizations, the EDA has been the backbone for our urban 
and rural areas for the last 30 years, creating new jobs, public 
facilities and disaster prevention assistance. Communities that have 
struggled to attract new industries or sought badly needed wastewater 
treatment systems have been able to rely on the EDA assistance when 
these projects often seem impossible.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot overemphasize the positive impact that EDA has 
had on the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Second District that I 
represent. This organization has brought relief to many communities 
suffering from severe economic dislocation, the remnants of flood 
disaster and an absence of adequate public facilities and services. We 
have made great strides in shaping a highly respected agency that 
continues to provide critical funds to the most distressed regions of 
this country.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I agree with 
everything that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) has said. I 
serve on the drug task force with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis). It is a very 
important undertaking, and we have done well by the drug courts in our 
appropriations.
  I think this is an amendment not about drug courts but about taking 
$25 million away from the Economic Development Administration.
  It has been said the economy is doing well. That we do not need to 
plus up EDA. Let me say in response to that two things. The economy is 
doing well because this Congress has shown that we can balance the 
budget and we are funding an additional $25 million for EDA within the 
framework of a balanced budget. I am proud of that. But there are also 
some communities in this Nation, there are some communities in every 
congressional district that are not doing so well. That is the beauty 
of the Economic Development Administration.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, my question would be, that may very well be 
true. Why are we increasing overhead 19 percent? The point is, we are 
disproportionately increasing overhead. Let us agree to trim the 
overhead down and give the money to the communities rather than consume 
it in Washington.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
is my understanding that this appropriation is in connection with an 
authorization bill that is going forward. There is always room for 
saving money on overhead. But let me say what this money goes to.
  It is one of the tools, I can say this, it is one of the tools that 
is used efficiently in my State, along with all of the other job 
creating programs that we have talked about, to create jobs in the 
private sector, and that is what we ought to be doing. That is a good 
use of Federal funds. I support the EDA. I think that is what this 
amendment is about. I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a point, I believe the gentleman 
from Indiana raised a question of the EDA grant program resulting in 
job creation. Did I misunderstand the point when he was asking the 
gentlewoman from Florida about that issue? Was his point that it does 
not create jobs?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
said that the GAO said they found no specific study showing net in job 
creation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I invite the gentleman to come to my 
district. I refer him to a 1997 study of the public grant program 
conducted by Rutgers University and the New Jersey Institute of 
Technology that yielded the following results: for every million 
dollars of Federal funding from EDA's public grant program, 327 jobs 
are created, $10 million in the private sector is leveraged, increasing 
the tax base by $10 million. So I would refer the gentleman to that 
study.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that apparently the gentleman 
may not be aware, that raised the question, that the EDA has cut its 
overhead at least 25 percent, I believe as much as one-third of the 
number of jobs in the central office over the past few years.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been associated with the EDA program for almost 
33 years. I still have, am proud of having it, one of the pens that 
President Lyndon Johnson used to sign that bill into law in August 
1965.
  EDA was created then for the purpose of responding to those 
communities, those regions in the Nation that did not share in the 
Nation's general prosperity, to pinpoint and target assistance to those 
communities locally or those regions that did not share in the Nation's 
prosperity.
  President John F. Kennedy was fond of saying, the national economic 
policies will float all boats, they will all rise. But not all boats 
rose with our prosperity then, and nor have all communities shared in 
the Nation's general economic growth and prosperity over the last 3 or 
4 years.
  The objective of the EDA program is to give local communities, 
regions, groups of counties or areas like Appalachia, where we have a 
separate program but which dovetails with EDA, the tools they need, the 
financial assistance they need to create jobs and economic opportunity 
and outlook and hope. Hope in Appalachia, in the 1930s, the 1940s and 
the 1950s, was a bus ticket north to Detroit or Cleveland, Chicago or 
the Twin Cities of Minnesota. But with EDA and with the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, hope now means an opportunity to create jobs where 
you live, where your family ties are, where your social connections 
are, where you want to live.
  That has given us an opportunity for job growth where it counts most, 
like areas in the Rust Belt of Ohio, Pennsylvania, the Mon Valley, or, 
as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said, areas that have been 
stricken by base closures of the military where you have a sudden 
economic collapse or areas like northeastern Minnesota, dependent on 
natural resources, iron ore mining, timber harvesting. The national 
economy may do well, but our region goes down through

[[Page H7125]]

the bottom when there is some little blip in Pittsburgh or Cleveland or 
the South Works of U.S. Steel in Chicago, and our economy just drops 
through the bottom. That is when you need this kind of targeted 
economic assistance.
  In hearings that I held, when I chaired the Subcommittee on Economic 
Development with my dear, wonderful friend, former member, Bill 
Clinger, and we held extensive hearings on the performance of EDA, in 
the 15 years, the first 15 years of that program there were 4.5 billion 
invested in projects across this country. They created a million and a 
half jobs. That million and a half jobs paid every year $6.5 billion in 
Federal, State and local taxes. Every year the Federal, State and local 
governments are getting more money back from EDA than we invested in 15 
years. Jobs, hope, economic opportunity.
  The 90 percent eligibility red herring happened because Congress 
imposed a moratorium on EDA from designating areas. The legislation our 
committee on a bipartisan basis has reported out, and we hope to bring 
it to the floor after the Labor Day recess, will do away with that. In 
fact, year after year we have brought legislation to the House floor. 
It has passed this body, not the other body; that does away with that 
90 percent figment of people's imagination. Ninety percent of the 
country is not eligible, and the program is not managed so that 90 
percent of the country is eligible. That is just nonsense.
  I would just say that we have demonstrated, when you give communities 
the resources they need to create job opportunities as they see fit, we 
get an enormous return on that investment, every year more money paid 
in taxes than we have invested in EDA in its entire history. That is a 
return on investment.
  I would just sum up by the words of a wonderful witness, not an 
economist, not a specialist, no great degrees, Red Robinson from 
southern Virginia, who at our committee hearing said, you know, we are 
just proud, conservative mountain people. We are not asking for a 
handout. We are asking for a hand up. EDA has given us that hand up.
  Defeat this amendment. Give all America a hand up.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I rise to oppose the Souder amendment. I support what they want to 
fund, but I think taking it from EDA is one of the worst choices we 
could make of a program to cut.
  I come from rural western Pennsylvania, rural central Pennsylvania. 
We had steel, glass, coal and oil decline within a decade, collapse.
  I have watched what EDA does. It is one of a couple programs, there 
are only a couple programs that target distressed areas. I come from a 
State that had a lot of good economic development programs. I always 
complained they went into the suburban areas where we did not need more 
employment, they did not have enough employees. But EDA reaches into 
towns that have lost their only mill, their only glass plant, or have 
shut down the local coal mines to help them rebuild their base.
  If you look at Clinton County in Pennsylvania, because they were able 
to build a sewer line with EDA funds, they have 300 people working that 
would not be working today.
  Abandoned rail lines have been a major problem in my district. I can 
give you two examples. In Tioga County, where EDA purchased a rail line 
and put it back in service, 450 new manufacturing jobs there and a 
company that is going to double in size the next few years with some 
EDA targeted money.
  In Center County, 1000 jobs, again a rail line that was closed was 
purchased, was put back into service. In Elk County, the Stackpole 
Corporation used to employ 3000 people, closed, sat empty for almost a 
decade. And today, because EDA was the glue that put it together, 300 
people are employed there and soon 6- to 900.
  Even right at home where I live, today they announced that the 
Cyclops plant that closed 4 years ago that had 1000 specialty steel 
jobs in a town of 5000 people, 4 years ago lost 1000 jobs with no hope, 
and our hope right now is we are applying to EDA to refurbish that 
steel mill and get it back into production and a number of businesses, 
breaking it up into an incubator and several places where we can bring 
companies into that community.
  EDA helps the poorest of our communities, gives jobs and 
opportunities to their citizens. We have a lot of programs to help 
urban America. EDA helps them, too. But we have a few programs that 
help rural America. Rural America is economically hurting. We may be at 
an end of a 7-year growth in the economy of this State, but I want to 
tell you, I can take you to pockets of rural America where we are 
hurting. In my view, there are a lot of Federal policies that are 
strangling rural America's economic future. To cut off rural America's 
right hand as it tries to pull itself up by its bootstraps, and EDA is 
one of the most effective agencies, one of the most targeted agencies 
to do that, is a mistake, when we would continue to spend three times 
the amount of money for the International Development Association, 
twice the amount of money for US AID, the Agency for International 
Development, spend almost that much money in Bosnia and almost 2\1/2\ 
times that much money in Russia to help rebuild their economies, this 
is a cut in the wrong place.
  It may be a cut from a good program, but a cut in the wrong place. 
EDA, in my view, has become an agency that very effectively targets 
hurting places in America, and we should be increasing it even more, 
not cutting it.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment, and I think the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania just explained it well. Many of the 
reasons, for every company's name that he used, I could use another 
company's name. It is a similar situation in West Virginia. I would 
like to address some of the points that some of the proponents of this 
amendment have brought up.

                              {time}  1815

  First of all, I think it ought to be pointed out that I believe this 
Congress is getting very close to a true bipartisan agreement on EDA. 
Under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) 
and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Kim), 
as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant), the committee reported out an EDA reauthorization, I 
believe last week, on a voice vote with no dissenting votes, which 
shows true bipartisan cooperation.
  Some have raised the question of duplication. I am trying to figure 
out where that duplication occurs, because in talking about other 
programs such as Small Business Administration, Small Business 
Administration is a program dedicated to individuals, so an individual 
makes application for a loan; or the USDA's rural development program, 
the individual makes application. EDA is something far different. That 
is dealing with an entity, a group, usually a public body.
  I have also found that EDA is the linchpin that makes the deal 
possible. For instance, there is a project in West Virginia in which 
$2.5 million of EDA money and $2 million of ARC money helped leverage 
$60 million of private sector investment which is going to create 
hundreds of jobs. We do not get that kind of return too often. But 
without the EDA being involved and providing the infrastructure to that 
project, it would not have happened.
  And so there is not duplication, and the EDA is what often is the 
critical matrix, the critical glue that pulls it all together.
  Finally, the people advocating this amendment raise a very attractive 
argument of drug courts. I support drug courts. I think there ought to 
be more drug courts. I think the funding ought to be increased, but not 
out of EDA. Why? Because the irony to this is, and I quote here and 
believe I am quoting former President Reagan, ``The best welfare 
program is a job,'' and EDA creates jobs, private sector jobs.
  So what is it that brings people to drug courts but hopelessness, and 
so they resort to drugs. EDA is another way out. It brings economic 
development and jobs to areas that do not have them. So this is 
absolutely the wrong way to go about helping drug

[[Page H7126]]

courts. If we want to help drug courts, then we should find the funding 
out of some other portion, but do not do it out of the one thing that 
brings hope and enterprise and jobs to a community. So I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman agree that, even if my 
amendment passes, there will be a $6.8 million increase in the 
assistance portion of EDA?
  Mr. WISE. I agree if the gentleman's amendment passes, that will be X 
amount of jobs that will not be created. The gentleman will want to put 
it into drug courts. I am trying to keep people out of drug courts by 
giving them a job in the first place.
  Mr. SOUDER. So is it is an increase; it is just a question of how big 
an increase and what that means.
  Is the gentleman familiar with the GAO study that says, for example, 
the Rutgers study referred to earlier did not establish the direct 
connection? As the gentleman well knows, when one does economic 
development, which I did as a former staffer and worked with EDA, and I 
believe it does have meritorious projects, that net studies have not 
made the connection, including the Rutgers studies, that have proven 
the direct correlation.
  Mr. WISE. I believe even the GAO studies, and it has been a few years 
since I have looked at it, but even the GAO study has trouble making 
the direct statements the gentleman wants it to make. And saying a job 
is directly caused by anything is difficult to do, but I can point to 
the gentleman, and I know the gentleman can in his district, and 
everyone who has testified, Republican and Democrat, in favor of EDA 
knows that EDA has brought hope and jobs to their area. Indeed, in my 
area, I can point to project after project where something would not be 
there were it not for EDA.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague Representative Mark Souder to cut 
$25 million from the appropriation for the Economic Development 
Administration (EDA) in order to fund the drug court program.
  Mr. Chairman, the appropriations bill before us, H.R. 4276, contains 
$368 million for the EDA grant program, the same amount authorized in 
H.R. 4275, the EDA reauthorization bill ordered reported by the 
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee in late July. This 
appropriation is consistent with the EDA program reforms included in 
the reauthorization bill.
  The increase for the drug court program is not necessary. The 
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill before us already increases 
this program from $30 million to $40 million, a $10 million increase. 
Further, Chairman Rogers has graciously agreed to accept an amendment 
by Representative Ensign to add another $3 million for the drug court 
program to bring funding to $43 million.
  While I am supportive of the drug court program which provides grants 
to state, local and Indian tribal governments to help develop treatment 
options for nonviolent drug offenders, I believe that a funding level 
of $43 million is more than adequate--and is $13 million more than the 
1998 level and the Administration's request for FY99.
  The Economic Development Administration programs that assist 
distressed counties throughout the country to strengthen and stabilize 
local economies by creating jobs through community development projects 
will need all the appropriated funds contained in this bill in order to 
implement new EDA reforms, and to adequately serve the country's needs.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment to cut $25 million from 
the EDA appropriation in order to bring the funding for drug courts to 
an unwarranted and unprecedented level of $68 million. Mr. Chairman, 
$68 million for drug courts, as worthy as those programs are, would 
mean a $38 million increase above that requested by the Administration 
for fiscal year 1999 and above the amount made available last year. 
Again, I urge defeat of the Souder amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       In addition, $215,356,000 for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, as authorized by the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as amended, 
     and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
     1996.


                              construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of federally owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects; $11,287,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including 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; 
     expenses for conducting drug education and training programs, 
     including travel and related expenses for participants in 
     such programs and the distribution of items of token value 
     that promote the goals of such programs; purchase of not to 
     exceed 1,428 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,080 will be 
     for replacement only, for police-type use without regard to 
     the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal 
     year; and acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft; $796,290,000, of which not to exceed $1,800,000 for 
     research and $15,000,000 for transfer to the Drug Diversion 
     Control Fee Account for operating expenses shall remain 
     available until expended, and of which not to exceed 
     $4,000,000 for purchase of evidence and payments for 
     information, not to exceed $10,000,000 for contracting for 
     automated data processing and telecommunications equipment, 
     and not to exceed $2,000,000 for laboratory equipment, 
     $4,000,000 for technical equipment, and $2,000,000 for 
     aircraft replacement retrofit and parts, shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2000; and of which not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.
       In addition, $405,000,000, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, to remain available until 
     expended for such purposes.

                              construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of federally owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects; $8,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, as 
     follows:

                     enforcement and border affairs

       For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     the Border Patrol program, the detention and deportation 
     program, the intelligence program, the investigations 
     program, and the inspections program, including not to exceed 
     $50,000 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; purchase for police-type use (not to exceed 3,855 
     passenger motor vehicles, of which 2,535 are 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; research related to immigration enforcement; and 
     for the care and housing of Federal detainees held in the 
     joint Immigration and Naturalization Service and United 
     States Marshals Service's Buffalo Detention Facility; 
     $1,096,431,000, of which not to exceed $400,000 for research 
     shall remain available until expended; of which not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 shall be available for costs associated with the 
     training program for basic officer training, and $5,000,000 
     is for payments or advances arising out of contractual or 
     reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement 
     agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to 
     immigration; and of which not to exceed $5,000,000 is to fund 
     or reimburse other Federal agencies for the costs associated 
     with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled 
     illegal aliens: Provided, That none of the funds available to 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be available 
     to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in excess of 
     $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 1, 1999: 
     Provided further, That uniforms may be purchased without 
     regard to the general purchase price limitation for the 
     current fiscal year: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided in this or any other Act shall be used for the 
     continued operation of the San Clemente and Temecula 
     checkpoints unless the checkpoints are open and traffic is 
     being checked on a continuous 24-hour basis.

[[Page H7127]]

  citizenship and benefits, immigration support and program direction

       For all programs of the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service not included under the heading ``Enforcement and 
     Border Affairs'', $523,083,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $5,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That the Attorney 
     General may transfer any funds appropriated under this 
     heading and the heading ``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' 
     between said appropriations notwithstanding any percentage 
     transfer limitations imposed under this appropriation Act and 
     may direct such fees as are collected by the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service to the activities funded under this 
     heading and the heading ``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' 
     for performance of the functions for which the fees legally 
     may be expended: Provided further, That not to exceed 43 
     permanent positions and 43 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $4,284,000 shall be expended for the Offices of Legislative 
     Affairs and Public Affairs: Provided further, That the latter 
     two aforementioned offices shall not be augmented by 
     personnel details, temporary transfers of personnel on either 
     a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis, or any other type 
     of formal or informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel 
     or funds on either a temporary or long-term basis: Provided 
     further, That the number of positions filled through non-
     career appointment at the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service, for which funding is provided in this Act or is 
     otherwise made available to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, shall not exceed 4 permanent 
     positions and 4 full-time equivalent workyears: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 1999, the Attorney General is authorized 
     and directed to impose disciplinary action, including 
     termination of employment, pursuant to policies and 
     procedures applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, for any employee of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service who violates policies and procedures 
     set forth by the Department of Justice relative to the 
     granting of citizenship or who willfully deceives the 
     Congress or department leadership on any matter.

                    violent crime reduction programs

       In addition, $866,490,000, for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund: Provided, That the Attorney 
     General may use the transfer authority provided under the 
     heading ``Citizenship and Benefits, Immigration Support and 
     Program Direction'' to provide funds to any program of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service that heretofore has 
     been funded by the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

                              construction

       For planning, construction, renovation, equipping, and 
     maintenance of buildings and facilities necessary for the 
     administration and enforcement of the laws relating to 
     immigration, naturalization, and alien registration, not 
     otherwise provided for, $81,570,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                         Federal Prison System

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration, operation, 
     and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional 
     institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 763, of which 
     599 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and 
     passenger motor vehicles, and for the provision of technical 
     assistance and advice on corrections related issues to 
     foreign governments; $2,922,354,000: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for 
     direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief 
     for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System (FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with 
     a fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to 
     determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of 
     the FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to 
     the custody of the FPS: Provided further, That uniforms may 
     be purchased without regard to the general purchase price 
     limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $90,000,000 for the activation of new 
     facilities shall remain available until September 30, 2000: 
     Provided further, That, of the amounts provided for Contract 
     Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses 
     authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980, as amended, for the care and security 
     in the United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding section 4(d) of the Service 
     Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 353(d)), FPS may enter into 
     contracts and other agreements with private entities for 
     periods of not to exceed 3 years and 7 additional option 
     years for the confinement of Federal prisoners.
       In addition, $26,499,000, for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

                        buildings and facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; leasing the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Facility; 
     purchase and acquisition of facilities and remodeling, and 
     equipping of such facilities for penal and correctional use, 
     including all necessary expenses incident thereto, by 
     contract or force account; and constructing, remodeling, and 
     equipping necessary buildings and facilities at existing 
     penal and correctional institutions, including all necessary 
     expenses incident thereto, by contract or force account; 
     $413,997,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not to exceed $14,074,000 shall be available to construct 
     areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That labor of 
     United States prisoners may be used for work performed under 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That not to exceed 10 
     percent of the funds appropriated to ``Buildings and 
     Facilities'' in this Act or any other Act may be transferred 
     to ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison System, upon 
     notification by the Attorney General to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in accordance with section 605 of this Act: Provided further, 
     That, of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $3,300,000 shall be available for the renovation and 
     construction of United States Marshals Service prisoner-
     holding facilities.

                federal prison industries, incorporated

       The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with 
     the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104 
     of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase 
     of (not to exceed 5 for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.

   limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries, 
                              incorporated

       Not to exceed $3,266,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an 
     accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which the said accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

                       Office of Justice Programs

                           justice assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Missing 
     Children's Assistance Act, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith, and with the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984, as amended, $155,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 1001 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524).

               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for 
     State and Local Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance 
     Improvements, notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 
     of said Act, $552,750,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 1001 of title I of said 
     Act, as amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), of 
     which $47,750,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of title I of 
     said Act, for discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne 
     Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs.


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Bass

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Bass:
       Page 25, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $19,500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,500,000)''.
       Page 51, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $43,000,000)''.
       Page 51, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $43,000,000)''.

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today will 
increase funding for the Edward Byrne grant program by $19.5 million. 
This increase would be offset by eliminating $43 million earmarked for 
new grants in fiscal year 1999 under the Advanced Technology Program. 
The reason for the difference between the $19.5 million

[[Page H7128]]

and the $43 million is a difference in outlays versus authority, but it 
is scored by CBO as a neutral scoring.
  As my colleagues know, the ATP program subsidizes private sector 
technological R&D, and Byrne programs, which would be increased by 
$19.5 million, are sources for Federal financial assistance for State 
and local drug enforcement efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, the business of appropriations is the business of 
making priority judgments. We heard about that when we were discussing 
the last amendment, about where scarce dollars should go, and the 
question posed by this amendment is very simple:
  Should we provide Federal financial assistance for State and local 
drug enforcement efforts, or do we provide companies like Dow Chemical 
with $7.8 million when they enjoyed a 1997 net profit of $1.81 billion? 
Do the math. That is like one six-thousandth of their entire profit.
  Or should we provide much-needed resources to fight crime and drug 
abuse in our schools, or do we provide IBM with $14.8 million when they 
made over $6 billion last year?
  Should we provide more money for the purchase of equipment to provide 
training and technical assistance to improve criminal justice systems, 
or is it more important to provide $3.7 million to the Ford Motor 
Company even though they showed a profit of $7 billion in 1997?
  Or how about funding education programs in schools to prevent 
children from getting hooked on drugs, or funds to help parents deal 
with and get treatment for a drug-dependent child and get that child 
into treatment, versus giving General Motors $3.2 million when they had 
a profit of $6.7 billion last year?
  My colleagues, it is indeed a question of priorities, and the Byrne 
Grant program is a great program, and I would suggest to my colleagues 
that it would be difficult to argue that we do not need any more money 
for this program; that we do not need any more money for crime 
prevention programs to assist citizens in communities and neighborhoods 
in preventing and controlling crime, especially crime directed against 
the elderly; and in rural jurisdictions to improve the response of the 
criminal and juvenile system to domestic violence and relate to law 
enforcement in the prevention of gangs or the youth at risk of joining 
gangs. This is where this money goes.
  And the question that we have to ask is do we want to add $43 million 
to ATP, which gives these $1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6 million grants, up to 
$14 million to Johnson & Johnson, when these companies are making more 
money in aggregate than the whole law enforcement budget has accrued in 
Congress.
  Indeed, my colleagues, the issue of appropriations is the issue of 
making priority decisions. And in my opinion fighting crime in our 
neighborhoods, so that our parents know that their children are a 
little safer at school or out in the community, is more important than 
helping companies that have an aggregate research and development 
budget of almost $40 billion, giving them $43 million for their new 
programs when they are making plenty of money the way it is now.
  Mr. Chairman, I do hope that my colleagues will support this 
amendment and vote it up.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bass 
amendment to eliminate $43 million from the Advanced Technology 
Program.
  I have listened to the gentleman's debate with interest. What is 
interesting to me is, again, the false choices he sets up. The programs 
that he lists, drug courts, a lot of the law enforcement activities, 
this subcommittee has robustly funded, and I think we are justly proud 
of the amount of money that we have put into law enforcement to fight 
crime and drugs in this country.
  The other point that I would make is that, again, his statement is 
interesting because of what it left out. And that is, as he talks about 
the large companies that are receiving money for the ATP program, he 
leaves out the fact that many, many, many of these grants, and I do not 
know specifically of which ones he speaks, but the ATP program is 
characterized by its ability to, number one, fund precommercial 
research and also to do it in partnerships with small companies, with 
academic institutions, bringing together these strategic alliances that 
would not be brought together if it were not for the program. Only if 
we philosophically believe that the Federal Government should not be 
making contributions for basic research in these core strategic areas 
should we even consider supporting the Bass amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment is meant to confuse the debate on this 
issue. He has chosen to take funds out of the ATP program and add them 
to a very popular grant program, the Byrne Grant program, because he 
knows this program is supported by a large majority of our membership. 
Well, I am a very strong advocate of the Byrne Grant program. Those 
funds help every State in the union to assist local communities in 
implementing comprehensive approaches to fighting crime. It is an 
excellent program. Byrne Grant funding has increased by $77 million 
since 1994, and no one has supported it more strongly than I.
  The administration has requested $552 million for the Byrne Grant 
program in 1999, and the bill before us today fully funds that request, 
which is a slight increase over fiscal 1998 funds. Let me state that 
again. The Byrne Grant program is fully and completely funded in this 
bill.
  It is a shame that my colleague has chosen to offer such an 
amendment. I, for one, am strongly in favor of both initiatives, ATP 
and these crime fighting programs, and there are adequate funds 
provided in our bill to support them. This amendment would cut $43 
million provided in the bill for new awards under the ATP program, and 
this would, in effect, kill the program. So only if we are 
diametrically opposed to the program, only if we are philosophically 
opposed to the program, only if we would like to kill the ATP program 
would we vote for this amendment.
  I would like to summarize the reasons that I am a strong supporter of 
ATP, be a little positive here. First, the ATP program makes a very 
sound contribution to this Nation, maintaining a competitive position 
in the global marketplace.

                              {time}  1830

  It is a sound contribution but it is still a small contribution 
relatively. As of right now, with the ATP program funded as it is, the 
U.S. ranks 28th behind all of our major global competitors in the 
percentage of government R&D invested in civilian technologies.
  While we sit here tonight debating an amendment which would cripple 
the ATP program, across the ocean our competitors, England, Germany, 
Australia, Portugal, are investing heavily in similar initiatives. In 
fact, the governments of the European Community, understanding the 
strategic importance of these kinds of investments and these 
partnerships of government with academia and private industry, this 
European Community is funding advanced technology research to the tune 
of $5.5 billion.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, how is the U.S. doing economically compared 
to Europe and Japan, given the fact that these governments are 
providing so much money for economic research and development?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I ask the gentleman to tell me.
  Mr. BASS. Well, we are doing an awful lot better.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are.
  Mr. BASS. We are not doing half as much.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do we have an ATP program?
  Mr. BASS. We have an ATP that is much smaller than those other 
governments and we are doing so much better.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have to assume that 
the ATP program is making its contribution in this strategic effort for 
the government to participate, and they must be competitive in the 
future, and I appreciate the gentleman making my point.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bass amendment.
  I want to take this in a little bit different direction. Last night 
this House

[[Page H7129]]

voted to support the Shays-Meehan amendment to eliminate soft money 
contributions. I thought it would be interesting for us to look at the 
grantees from the ATP program and their soft money contributions, 
because there happens to be a very good correlation.
  So if we really believe in corporate welfare, then we are going to 
not support the Bass amendment; but if we do not believe in corporate 
welfare, if we truly recognize that over 60 percent of the money in ATP 
grants goes to non-small business but goes to Fortune 500 companies, 
then in fact we can support this amendment.
  Let me relate some of the details. IBM has been mentioned. Since 1990 
it has received $134 million in taxpayer grants, including over $15,000 
last year. In the same period, IBM had $6 billion in profits last year. 
They spent well over $5 million of this money on research and 
development. IBM was one of the top soft money givers.
  General Motors, since 1990, received $105 million in taxpayer funds 
for research and development. GM had profits of $6.8 billion last year. 
General Motors also was in the top 100. General Motors did slightly 
better with relationship to ATP than Ford or Chrysler. Over the same 
period of time, GM received $105 million, Ford only $68 million, 
Chrysler a pittance of $30 million. But it was General Motors, and not 
Ford or Chrysler, who made the list of top 100 soft money contributors.
  General Electric, over the 1995 election cycle, gave over $1 million 
in soft money but received $11 million in ATP program money.
  AT&T, which over the same election period contributed $2.7 million in 
soft money to our two political parties, has received $69 million in 
ATP funds.
  What I would like this body to consider, if we really do not believe 
in soft money and we really do not see a connection between ATP grants 
and soft money, and we really want to get rid of soft money, we ought 
to get rid of one of the reasons that soft money is there. It is the 
corporate welfare that we see.
  Let me just mention a few more.
  Sun Microsystems had a net profit last year of $762 million; received 
over $50 million in ATP grants over the last 7 years. United 
Technologies had over $1 billion profit. They received over $4 million 
in grants in 1995. 3-M, $1.626 billion in profits. They received almost 
$2 million in grants.
  I think what we need to do is be honest with the American public. 
There is a place for ATP. It is to small business and small 
entrepreneur business, not the Fortune 500 companies who are well 
endowed with their own profits and can afford their own research.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, in trying to draw a correlation between ATP 
and soft money, my recollection, in the 4 years I have served in this 
House, is that the majority of Republicans in this body have voted 
against the ATP program. But it is also my recollection that in the 4 
years I have been here, the majority of soft money dollars went to the 
Republican Party.
  How would my colleague explain that?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I probably do not have 
an explanation other than to say that there are no clean hands when it 
comes to soft money, not on either side.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, a further point here. My colleague may be 
aware of the fact that on the 26th of July, 1995, just a little more 
than 3 years ago, this House voted 223 to 204 to zero out ATP.
  We are also aware of the fact that only 40 percent of ATP funding 
goes to small businesses. And in their own statements ATP has said that 
they have ``no special allowance for small business.''
  And, thirdly, 42 percent of the recipients of ATP funding said they 
would have done the research anyway.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just summarize 
by saying that we should recognize what corporate welfare is. Everybody 
talks that word. Everybody says it. But now it is time to vote. It is 
time to take the money away from the richest corporations in this 
country and let them stand on their own two feet. It is called 
competition. It is called allowing them to use their own insight and 
own assets to compete in the world.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. In spite 
of the fact that the large companies make most of their contributions 
to Republicans, I rise in support of the ATP program because it is key 
to the economic growth.
  The capability to generate, diffuse, and employ new technologies in 
the face of rising technical competence and competition around the 
world will determine in a large measure the Nation's ability to succeed 
and prosper in the 21st century.
  These programs give these U.S. firms an incentive that accelerates 
the development of technologies that, because they are risky, are 
unlikely to be developed in time to compete in rapidly changing world 
markets.
  For Americans, the real payoff is the economic growth fueled by the 
introduction of future products and industrial processes based on the 
ATP-sponsored research.
  The ATP is a competitive, peer-reviewed, cost-shared program with 
industry. Their sole aim is to develop high-risk, potentially high-
payoff enabling technologies that otherwise would not be pursued 
because of technical risks and other obstacles that discourage private 
investment.
  The ATP has proven to be an effective mechanism for motivating 
companies to look farther out onto the technology horizon. By 
discarding the ATP, we would destroy progress made in encouraging far-
looking, risk-sharing research and development of new enabling 
technologies.
  We are fortunate that people long before us took a chance and made 
sure that that research was done that created the technologies that we 
are working with now. We have a responsibility to not eliminate the ATP 
because it would destroy the momentum created for a new type of 
industry-led industry, government, university partnership; a 
partnership with appropriate roles, appropriate goals, and exciting 
prospects for our U.S. economic gain.
  Government and industry have always made substantial commitments to 
ATP. Its demise would show the government to be a capricious and 
unreliable partner. But to ensure economic growth and jobs into the 
next century, the country depends on U.S. industry to put science and 
technology to work.
  Throughout this century, the United States has built whole new 
industries upon a flourishing science and technology base created by 
the Federal Government and private firms. Public-private partnerships 
have resulted in the birth of new industries such as computers and 
biotechnology, and world leadership in others such as aerospace, 
telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals.
  However, times have changed. Today, Federal agencies are more focused 
on science and technology that is essential to their missions. Even 
though there is an even greater focus on technology transfer, there is 
greatly reduced spin-off from mission-related research.
  Company research and development has shifted to narrower, more 
focused work. Large firms no longer pour billions into the development 
of high-risk, broad-based technologies that other firms can build on, 
such as GE, AT&T, Bell Labs and IBM once did.
  While it may be true, as some would say, that large firms are able to 
pay for their own R&D, it is also true that they will not pay for 
longer-term, higher-risk, broadly applicable technology if other firms 
are going to benefit from the research without paying for it.
  ATP fills a critical niche in the Nation's science and technology 
portfolio. Large and small firms are an important part of the mix, 
along with universities and national labs.
  Part of the reason that large firms need to be involved with ATP 
partnerships is because, in large measure, that is where the technology 
is. The United States and its citizens stand to benefit more in this 
equation than the individual firms.
  In addition, small firms and universities, about half the ATP awards 
go to

[[Page H7130]]

small firms, frequently want larger firms in the partnership to provide 
critical business and marketing skills or to provide complementary 
technologies needed for further development. So large firms also 
frequently ante up the extra funding that allows universities and 
others to participate and to provide the organizational staff for 
collaborations.
  A program like the ATP program sweetens the pot to induce firms to 
form partnerships to develop important technology that would not be 
developed otherwise. It is one element in a strategy to bridge the gap 
between public R&D, largely basic science and mission driven, and 
private research and development, largely focused on products and low-
risk science and technology.
  Important, high risk, enabling technologies exist in large firms as 
well as small. Just as in small firms, many of these technologies will 
only be developed if the Government and industry share the risk and the 
benefits.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bass amendment. The 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) is my dear friend, but I think 
this amendment that he has offered, which would cut off all new grants 
for the ATP program, would effectively kill the program and I strongly 
oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, ATP should not be killed. Companies that have 
participated in the program, even those that have not, agree. The 
Coalition for Technology Partnerships includes companies ranging from 
IBM and B.F. Goodrich, to the Cryovac Division of the Seal Air 
Corporation in my home State of Maryland, which has written to me to 
express their opposition to the Bass amendment. Let me quote from the 
letter.

       The ATP enables organizations to share costs, risks, and 
     technology expertise in precompetitive R&D. By pooling 
     resources, it allows projects to be pursued that otherwise 
     would lie dormant. Smaller companies frequently want to work 
     with larger ones to gain access to skills, technology, 
     funding and potential customers available in no other way. 
     Cooperative research programs like ATP strengthen small 
     companies measurably. The Bass amendment kills this.

  The House appropriators have already reduced ATP funding by $12.3 
million, from $192.5 million in fiscal year 1998 to $180.2 million in 
fiscal year 1999. Further, they cut new awards by 48 percent. Last year 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology spent $82 million on 
new ATP projects. Under H.R. 4276, NIST would be limited to only $43 
million in new awards. That already is a $39 million cut.
  The House appropriators have cut ATP enough. The effort to eliminate 
new ATP awards is simply an effort to kill the program, not 
reprioritize funding in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, I introduced and the House passed and the 
committee approved, obviously, H.R. 1274, which was the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997. H.R. 
1274 makes important changes to ATP.
  What it does is, it includes language to reform the grant process by 
requiring that grants can only go to projects that cannot proceed in a 
timely manner without Federal assistance.
  The bill also increases the match requirements for ATP grant 
recipients to 60 percent for joint ventures and non-small business 
single applicants.

                              {time}  1845

  Through these reforms, the House is moving ATP in the right 
direction. We have reformed it.
  Just last week, the Senate passed S. 1325, the Technology 
Administration Authorization Act. That bill also authorizes ATP and 
includes many of the same reforms that were contained in H.R. 1274.
  Both the House and the Senate authorizers include money for new ATP 
grants in fiscal year 1999. The Senate bill would allow for roughly $67 
million in new awards while the House includes roughly $13 million. 
Since the final ATP authorization for fiscal year 1999 has yet to be 
worked out, the House appropriations figure of $43 million in new 
grants seems appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that if you zero out new awards, you 
kill the ATP program. I believe that we should reform it, and we have 
been doing that, and not kill it. It is a true partnership.
  With the passage of H.R. 1274 and S. 1325, the House and Senate have 
taken strong, positive steps to reform ATP. Let us not reverse course 
now.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, a similar amendment to end ATP and transfer 
money to another worthwhile project, in that case juvenile crime 
prevention, failed by a vote of 163-261. The Bass amendment should be 
defeated as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask all my colleagues to support cooperative research 
to strengthen our economy. Vote ``no'' on the Bass amendment.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Simply today we are talking about creating jobs for the future for 
our constituents, for American workers, or whether or not we are going 
to stand by and refuse to invest in the kinds of partnerships that will 
create new technologies to create those jobs. In Michigan, we have put 
together a number of ATP projects that have been extremely positive. 
One is the Auto Body Consortium.
  The gentleman introduced this amendment by talking about Ford and 
General Motors, Chrysler also falls in that category, as receiving 
dollars. They have not received individual dollars for individual 
projects. They are part of a consortium of universities, small 
businesses and the auto industry to work on high-risk, cutting-edge, 
new technologies so that we can compete with foreign automobile 
companies. That is the bottom line. ATP has been a contributing factor 
in bringing together, and sometimes the most contributing factor in 
bringing together industries, so that instead of competing as they do 
on a daily basis, they can work together as an industry on behalf of 
American workers and American business to compete and create new 
efficiencies and new technologies so that we can be effective in 
keeping jobs here in America rather than having them be overseas. The 
ATP contributes to a valuable new culture of cooperation in U.S. 
industrial R&D.
  In one study of more than 400 organizations working on ATP projects, 
nearly 80 percent worked on the project in collaboration with other 
companies, universities or Federal labs. Eighty-five percent of these 
reported that the ATP played a significant role in bringing the 
collaborative relationship together. I can speak firsthand in Michigan 
for the fact that that is true. Corporations, businesses are busy 
working, focusing on the bottom line week to week, quarter to quarter. 
The ATP allows them and creates an incentive to bring them together on 
an industry basis to look long-term. That is what we need as Americans, 
to be looking long-term as far as jobs are concerned.
  The results of ATP-sponsored research, commercialized by private 
industry, are starting to emerge from laboratories and enter the 
marketplace. I would like to just briefly mention three.
  One of the earliest ATP projects, a collaborative effort to develop a 
suite of advanced manufacturing technologies for the printed wiring 
board industry, PWB, resulted in new materials, testing, imaging and 
production techniques that have been credited by the National Center 
for Manufacturing Sciences with quite literally saving the roughly $7 
billion United States PWB industry with its approximately 200,000 jobs. 
ATP has been credited with quite literally saving 200,000 jobs and an 
entire industry.
  An ATP joint venture in the automobile industry as I mentioned 
earlier that included several small and mid-sized manufacturers and 
universities in Michigan resulted in manufacturing monitoring and 
control technologies that have led to significantly improved 
dimensional tolerances, improving vehicle quality and customer 
satisfaction. One economist has projected that the project's market-
share boost for U.S. auto manufacturers has resulted in thousands of 
new jobs and a $3 billion increase in the U.S. industrial output within 
the next two years. We are talking about jobs, high-paying jobs for my 
constituents and the constituents of my colleagues.
  Finally, the ATP was instrumental in promoting the research that led 
to today's DNA chips, miniaturized genetics labs that offer fast, up to 
1,000 times faster than conventional methods, faster, accurate, low-
cost genetic

[[Page H7131]]

analysis. Early spin-offs of ATP projects in this area already are 
being used in agriculture and food and cosmetics testing as well as the 
obvious applications in drug discovery, human-genome research, and 
biomedical research.
  We are talking about the ability to increase the quality of life for 
our constituents, their health, their jobs, their food safety and the 
ability to move forward and compete in a world economy in partnership, 
around the world. We are competing against teams, teams of business, 
labor, government, education on the other side of the ocean. We have to 
have those teams in place.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Stabenow) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Bass, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Stabenow was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. STABENOW. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. The gentlewoman from Michigan has made a great case, it 
sounds like heaven on earth, but I think it is important to point out 
that these three automakers made almost $20 billion. ATP would be .005 
percent of their entire profits. The reality is that they could fund 
the entire consortium.
  Ms. STABENOW. If I could reclaim my time for a moment to indicate, 
this is about the ability to bring together competitors, to work 
together in a cooperative way on behalf of American workers. ATP allows 
them to do that.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment for a number 
of reasons, not least of which is the fact that even the strongest 
proponents of the ATP readily admit that its value, its subsidy goes 
almost exclusively to otherwise profitable corporations, many of them 
the largest corporations, not just in the United States but the largest 
and most profitable corporations in the entire world. They use phrases 
like cost-sharing and risk-sharing, but where I come from, that is 
simply a euphemism for subsidy.
  These are subsidies to very large corporations that are undertaking 
research and development, the vast majority of which otherwise would 
undertake that very same R&D because they know it makes good business 
sense to invest in these new products and in some cases even in 
emerging technologies.
  Risk-sharing. We somehow think that risk-sharing is something that 
the Federal Government, that the United States should be intimately 
involved in and taking taxpayer dollars and somehow subsidizing these 
risks. But the fact of the matter is we have a very well-developed 
venture capital industry in this country, most certainly the most well-
developed, most sophisticated venture capital industry in the world, 
that has a keen ability to go out and find new technologies, find new 
products, find new companies in which they can invest profitably. The 
idea that somehow the United States government, that a number of 
bureaucrats sitting around in an office somewhere in Washington, D.C. 
has the intellectual acumen to compete with the greatest minds in the 
world who are investing in ventures every day is ridiculous.
  I think what it comes down to are two things, two reasons that people 
insist on trying to subsidize R&D for these profitable corporations 
year after year after year: First, perhaps politicians want to take 
some credit for creating jobs. They want to feel that they can take 
taxpayer money allocated for one part of the country to another in some 
sort of a company, some sort of a venture and then take credit for jobs 
that might somehow be related to that investment. But that is not 
really what we are here to do. We are here to create an economic 
climate in which jobs can be created. We are not here as elected 
officials or bureaucrats that might be appointed in Washington to 
somehow decide what the technological winners and losers in our economy 
ought to be. The notion that we somehow can pick the new technologies, 
the new products that are going to create jobs for companies tomorrow 
as elected officials is simply wrong. We might be able to find one or 
two projects or even five or 10 projects where some job was created, 
and I would certainly hope that after spending billions of dollars, the 
ATP can point to at least a couple of successes, but the ultimate 
question is whether or not we are going to engage in this kind of 
corporate welfare year after year after year.
  We can also just as easily point to the areas where we have 
subsidized or tried to subsidize otherwise profitable industries or 
mistaken technologies at the expense of the taxpayer. There was a 
movement in this Congress eight, 10 years ago to subsidize the static 
memory industry, the D-RAM industry. It was the be-all and end-all of 
technology investment. We needed to be competitive. This was the future 
of the country. The fact of the matter is today the static memory 
business is one of the least profitable businesses in the entire world. 
If we had followed the industry policy wonks down that road, we would 
not have wasted millions or tens of millions of public money, we would 
have wasted hundreds of millions.
  High definition television. The Japanese government wasted billions 
of dollars developing a high definition TV standard that ultimately 
will be a laughingstock, because the private minds, the private sector 
was willing to take risks, invest in new technology, evolve technology, 
and ultimately it is a private sector-developed standard that will 
dominate the HDTV industry if and when it finally does arrive.
  Politicians and bureaucrats cannot and should not pick winners and 
losers in industries across the country. We should not play off one 
industry against the other; the telecommunications industry against the 
pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical industry against 
biotechnology, biotechnology against textiles. That is wrong. It is not 
just wrongheaded, it is not just intellectually wrong, but it is 
morally wrong, to take taxpayer funds from hardworking people who may 
not be in an industry that is getting the big subsidy, take their tax 
dollars and do not just give it to another industry but give it to some 
fat cat in a Fortune 500 company that is raking in billions and 
billions of dollars of profits every year.
  We need to take a stand against that kind of wrongheaded technology 
policy and industrial policy. We need to take a stand against corporate 
welfare. We need to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this 
shortsighted amendment, because it restricts American investment in new 
ideas. It is ideas and the whole process of innovation that cause 
economic growth. We should be nurturing new initiatives and providing 
opportunity for their development, not foreclosing them as this 
amendment seeks to do.
  In light of the comments of my friend and colleague from New 
Hampshire, let me tell you the story of a handful of research 
scientists from Springfield, Virginia. These researchers were studying 
methods of detecting minute concentrations of chemicals. Existing 
technology measures radiation output to identify these chemicals. 
However, when detecting extremely minute quantities, naturally 
occurring background radiation creates too much noise to provide useful 
measurements. To overcome this problem, they conceived of a 
sophisticated multiphoton detector which could not only measure the 
rate of radiation decay but the type of decay as well, effectively 
eliminating all background noise. Eventually we will all be able to see 
the importance of developing this technology. But the lenders and 
venture capitalists were wary of investing in what had to be considered 
a high-risk project.

                              {time}  1900

  With a $1.7 million grant, not a big grant, but $1.7 million from the 
Advanced Technology Program, they successfully developed the 
multiphoton detector. The detector is currently undergoing final 
testing, and the company is seeking premarketing approval from 
necessary regulatory agencies.
  Over the next few years these few researchers hope to take their firm 
public. They anticipate revenues of $88

[[Page H7132]]

million, and they expect to employ about 300 full-time employees, jobs 
and economic growth that would not have occurred had it not been for 
the ATP program.
  The benefits of this new detection system will have broad 
applications throughout society. Doctors can look for certain particles 
in minute traces of saliva rather than invasively drawing spinal fluid. 
There are applications for this product in health care, environmental 
protection, even processing materials to build sensitive items like 
semiconductors.
  When these researchers could not get financing from private sector 
local lenders and venture capitalists, they had to turn to the Advanced 
Technology Program. Without the ATP, the only option left to them would 
have been to develop this product overseas.
  Now China and Korea and Japan all realize the importance of funding 
high-risk research that will have broad benefits to their economy and 
society. If we relinquish our role as the world leader in fostering 
technological innovation, then we can expect a decrease in market share 
for all our technological products and a corresponding loss of American 
jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this amendment is in America's 
interest. I think the Advanced Technology Program is in America's 
interest. This amendment would hamper growth. We need to be finding 
ways of sustaining and expanding growth. This amendment would stifle 
innovation. We need to be encouraging innovation in every way possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote a resounding ``no''.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that I am a strong 
proponent of Federal programs that invest in basic R&D, and I would 
point to the National Science Foundation, $2.2 billion or so that we 
will invest this year through universities and laboratories and 
colleges all across the country. And my question would be: What exactly 
is the difference between the kinds of projects that the gentleman 
describes and the National Science Foundation programs?
  The only fundamental difference that I can see is under ATP the 
projects and the subsidies are going towards corporations, again, the 
largest corporations in the country for the most part. Why can we not 
consolidate whatever efforts they have with the NSF, which is already 
well-founded, well-funded and undertaking true basic research rather 
than subsidizing?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, ATP is 
much more focused on the private sector, on the small business 
community who aspire to bring companies public, to develop private 
sector jobs. NSF is much more university oriented, more academically 
oriented.
  They do compliment each other, they are not mutually exclusive, and 
that is the point I wish to make, that ATP does play a role. It is a 
complimentary role. It is kind of a last resort opportunity for firms 
that know that they have a good idea, they have to compete with other 
good ideas and have to be fully reviewed, and I think it is a great 
deal of scrutiny they are exposed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Moran of Virginia was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. The gentleman's point that the ATP funding is going to 
the private sector and companies that already exist emphasizes exactly 
the point that those of us that oppose the program are trying to make, 
and that, is the beneficiaries or private companies in most cases are 
already earning a profit, already undertaking this research, and we 
ought not to be subsidizing those private sector profitable 
initiatives.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I think the government has a synergistic role 
with the private sector, particularly in areas like this.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I might just add one point, and that is, 
the universities are in fact doing their research under ATP in 
cooperation, as the gentleman indicated. The private sector is involved 
in sharing information, but the dollars are not going to the major 
industries themselves. They are going to a consortium. The universities 
and small businesses have been contracting for those dollars, so we are 
talking about university-based research, as the gentleman is aware.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentlewoman from 
Michigan clarified that.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bass amendment, and I want 
to take some time to go through some basic facts about the program. But 
before I get into issues like the mission and how grants are made, I 
want to address the small business participation in ATP because I have 
a suspicion that my friends on the other side of the aisle are using 
data that is not completely up to date.
  Although the ATP makes no special allowance for small businesses, the 
results of the first 8 years of the program show that small and mid-
sized firms are in fact very successful at ATP competitions. Since 1990 
ATP has made a total of 352 cost-sharing awards to individual companies 
or industry-led joint ventures. One hundred eighty-five of these 
awards, more than 50 percent, went to small business.
  It is not, as my friends keep saying, that the vast majority of these 
dollars are going to large corporations. They are, in fact, going to 
small businesses. Other small businesses are also involved in joint R&D 
ventures supported by the ATP by forming strategic partnerships with 
larger firms. My colleague from Michigan pointed out that the dollars 
go to the venture itself, not to the composite corporations. So small 
businesses are participating fully in these kinds of opportunities 
along with larger corporations, and universities as well.
  To go back to the basic mission of the Advanced Technology Program, 
it is meant to develop technology to benefit the United States economy. 
The goal of the ATP is to benefit the U.S. economy by cost-sharing 
research with industry to foster new innovative technologies. The ATP 
invests in risky, challenging technologies that have the potential for 
a big payoff for the Nation's economy.
  These are the projects that traditional venture capitalists tend to 
shy away from, but there is a view that this could have a big payoff 
for us as a Nation. These technologies create opportunities for new 
world class products, services and industrial processes, benefiting not 
just the ATP participants but other companies and industries, and 
ultimately taxpayers as well. By reducing the early stage R&D risks for 
individual companies, the ATP enables industry to pursue promising 
technologies which otherwise would be ignored or develop too slowly to 
compete in a rapidly changing world market.
  One of the things that was found in a survey of ATP participants is 
that many felt that the technologies would not have been developed with 
the same speed were it not for the ATP program. And the reality is, and 
I will not yield until I finish my presentation, the reality for far 
too many corporations in this country is that R&D is now heavily D and 
very little R, and that is where the ATP program steps in.
  Unlike comments from my colleague from New Hampshire, ATP is not 
government-driven, it is industry-driven. Research priorities are set 
by the industry, not the government. For-profit companies conceive, 
propose and execute ATP projects and programs based on their 
understanding of the marketplace and research opportunities, so the 
genius that my friend from New Hampshire was talking about is indeed a 
part of this proposal. The ATP selection process, which includes both 
government and private sector experts, identifies the most meritorious 
efforts among those proposed by industry.
  ATP is not about product development. The ATP does not fund companies 
to do product development. ATP funds are indeed to develop high-risk 
technology to the point where it is feasible for companies to begin 
product

[[Page H7133]]

development. But they must do that on their own with their own money, 
and of course companies must bear the full responsibility for 
production, marketing, sales and distribution. So the idea that the ATP 
program is used to subsidize entire industries is patently untrue. It 
does not happen that way.
  The ATP is fair competition. Those competitions are rigorous, fair 
and based entirely on technical and business merit. Small companies 
compete just as effectively as large companies. As I said over and 
over, more than 50 percent of the grants go to small companies within 
the ATP program.
  The ATP is a partnership. It is not a free ride for winning 
companies. On the average, industry funds more than half the total R&D 
cost for ATP projects. The industry itself funds more than half the 
total R&D cost for ATP products, and the ATP program is evaluated. 
Critical evaluation of the ATP's impact on the economy is an important 
part of the program.
  ATP is not corporate welfare for large companies. The ATP is a 
competitive, peer-reviewed, cost-shared program with industry. The 
ATP's sole aim is to develop high-risk, potentially high-payoff 
enabling technologies that otherwise would not be pursued or would be 
pursued much more slowly because of technical risks and other obstacles 
that discourage private investment.
  Because of these reasons, I support very strongly the ATP program and 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Bass, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Rivers was 
allowed to proceed for 15 additional seconds.)
  Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I would not disagree it is the most 
competitive corporate welfare program around, but does the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) believe that ATP funds should not be awarded 
to companies that say that they would have developed the product 
anyway, as 42 percent of them did say?
  Ms. RIVERS. I think when my colleague looks at the real data, that 
what he will find, and I know and I am familiar with the study, and if 
the gentleman had been at the Committee on Science, he would have seen 
a lot of the problems with that study when we reviewed it.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote once 
again, just like last year, to reject the anti-ATP amendments offered 
by my colleagues from New Hampshire and California, Mr. Bass and Mr. 
Royce. It is my understanding that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce) is likely to offer a similar amendment later on in this bill 
that would cut everything but closeout funding for the ATP program.
  Instead, I would urge my colleagues to recognize the Advanced 
Technology Program for all the work it does ensuring America's 
competitiveness and bringing together the many separate research 
efforts constantly being undertaken by American industry, universities 
and the Federal Government.
  Right now in this country, Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate enough to 
be part of perhaps the most vibrant, robust economy in the world. In 
this atmosphere I can understand why some of my colleagues would want 
to make sure that we are not unnecessarily diverting Federal resources 
toward anything resembling corporate welfare.
  But the fact of the matter is, although American companies are 
visibly in the forefront of developing software and computer 
technologies and a number of other high-tech innovations, amazingly, 
U.S. manufacturers actually trail their international competitors in 
developing these technologies. This lag in the application of 
technology is something we can address through a partnership of 
industry with the government, and this is something we can do for 
relatively small sums.
  I urge my colleagues, when they look at how strong the American 
economy is, let us continue to look for ways to make it stronger. 
Economists agree that the application and adaptation of technology is a 
key part of our economic growth. The ATP program is one of the few 
tools available to us in the Congress that can make a difference in 
this area.
  While we debate this important issue our competitors are already 
convinced of the wisdom of assisting technology application and 
adaptation. Japan and the European Union are each spending billions a 
year on their counterparts to the ATP.
  Mr. Chairman, none of us here would advocate unilateral disarmament 
in the face of military threat to the United States, but ATP is an 
investment in our economic engine. It is an investment in our economic 
security.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to support the ATP program as a 
relatively modest Federal investment reaping impressive rewards. This 
program rightly supports both small business and the commanding heights 
of American industry.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan program initiated 
under the Bush administration and continuing with the support of both 
Democrats and Republicans, and urge a vote against Mr. Bass' amendment.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I could not resist this argument today because as I 
listened to it, and I have some good friends that are making it, all I 
could think of was back in about 1480, some 518 years ago, I suspect 
that in the country of Spain there was the leadership of Spain arguing 
with a rather novice voyager known as Christopher Columbus, arguing the 
proposition of whether the world was flat or round.

                              {time}  1915

  Luckily, Mr. Columbus won that argument, both in the persuasion of 
being financed for his voyage and establishing the proposition by 
virtue of his voyage.
  Then I wonder, in the early 19th century, in 1830 and 1840 in this 
country when public education was a hot issue and it was argued whether 
it was the role of government to guarantee primary or secondary 
education to all the students of this country, the proposition by the 
wealthy, the proposition by many of the well-intended, was that is not 
a role of government, and we should not divert resources of the 
government for the purposes of private education.
  I suspect that if we checked the Congressional Record of about 1943 
or 1944, there was very strong argument on that very same proposition 
when the GI Bill of Rights and the payment for college education for 
the returning veterans was also argued in this great Chamber.
  I would argue and offer as evidence a proposition to my friends: If 
we would look back to 1946 in the City of Philadelphia and the great 
invention of the first computer, the first computer was financed by the 
United States Government in its entirety. It was developed at the 
University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in 1946, and Philadelphia is 
not Silicon Valley. As a matter of fact, Pennsylvania is not the 
computer center of the world. But, from some of the reports that I have 
read, more than 23 percent of the employees now working in the United 
States would not have their jobs if it had not have been for the 
invention of the computer.
  Now, I have heard my friends argue on the ATP question that it is 
subsidization and corporate welfare. Very nicely charged, emotional 
words. And then I have heard the comment that there is all that venture 
capital out there.
  Well, I suggest, one, if you really believe there is all that venture 
capital out there, go back and read some of the record and hearings of 
the Subcommittee on Economic Development of the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services four, five and six years ago, where the venture 
capitalists of this country were called in, the technology people of 
this country were called in, and they readily admitted that taking an 
idea or a technology from bench model to commercialization was the 
greatest impacting device in America of how to accomplish this.
  Yes, when you have a proven technology that is ready to be 
commercialized tomorrow, you can go to Wall

[[Page H7134]]

Street or you can go to the stock market and raise your venture 
capital. But I venture to say if you have a brilliant idea and it is 
not yet commercialized, it is extremely difficult and extremely 
frustrating in this country to raise the funds to develop that to a 
commercial state.
  What we are talking about here is not, as one of the gentleman said, 
why do we need corporate welfare in the strongest economy in the world? 
Because the investments we are arguing for today are not for tomorrow, 
but for 5, 10, and 15 years from now, if we want to maintain our 
superiority in technology indeed in the world. And what are we arguing 
about for more than an hour? Twenty cents per man, woman and child in 
this country. That is what the ATP system allows.
  We have heard comments, what does EDA create, the Economic 
Development Administration? Well, I can tell you, in my district I can 
account for at least 3,000 to 5,000 jobs through the Economic 
Development Administration, and many of those are grants to private 
small companies that would never have been able to become a competitor 
in their industry or field without some basic support from the United 
States Government.
  Is it sinful for the government to encourage inventive people, 
entrepreneurs, to take new technologies that create new unimagined 
wealth and support that in some little way? I argue not.
  I think the invention of the computer proves my adversary is wrong.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, in the course of our debate we will always face a 
series of dilemma. We have faced it with respect to juxtaposing 
economic development and advanced technology against the need for Drug 
Courts and the need to decrease the utilization and the criminal 
element of drug use. I find that a very commendable posture, and 
certainly those who have come to the floor to debate that are committed 
as well to that mission.
  But I think we have been moving in the wrong direction, and 
previously we discussed eliminating or decreasing the funding for the 
Economic Development Agency, again not recognizing the need for 
domestic infusion of dollars to help the economy.
  My communities in Houston are distressed in many neighborhoods and 
economic development monies are key to their survival and the creation 
of jobs. Now we come to eliminate or to decrease the ATP funding some 
$43 million.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand pages and pages of awards to 
the State of Texas, some 14, and in refuting my colleague's 
presentation about corporate welfare, I have tried to look and find the 
large conglomerates on this list. Mr. Chairman, I cannot find them. 
They are the small firms who have the genius, but not the capital. They 
are the universities who have the academicians and the bright students, 
the Ph.D. candidates who, time after time, come up with solutions to 
help us make this Nation and the world a better place. These are the 
recipients of the ATP funds, and I reject the premise that this is 
corporate welfare.
  This is helping those who cannot go even to their neighborhood bank 
or the large conglomerate bank because they have an idea, they do not 
have a marketable entity. These are grants that are not Wall Street-
type monies, billions of dollars, but these are grants to help people 
get started.
  The Advanced Technology Program has already led to better liquid 
crystal displays. I would venture to say that most of us would sit down 
and wonder what are liquid crystal displays. Also more accurate and 
faster DNA testing and better sunscreens. These small and probably not 
recognizable, except for DNA, of course, scientific advancements, came 
about through the ATP program.
  These improved products are not only beneficial to our economy 
because they produce marketable and successful goods, but they also 
improve our overall quality of life.
  I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, with 101, 102 and 105 degree 
temperatures in Texas right now, I would venture to say there is a lot 
of sunscreen being used. It may not be the only answer, but I can tell 
you it helps us out a lot. Better sunscreen means more people can enjoy 
the outdoors. In this instance we can come outdoors with a little 
sunscreen. Better LCD's means lighter and better displays on computers 
and watches. For those of us needing to see a little better these days, 
that is an advancement.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would say we need to dispel the notion that 
advanced technology programs are corporate welfare. In fact, more than 
half the grants dispersed through the program go to small businesses 
and universities. These institutions need and deserve our help.
  Academia and small businesses are an indispensable ingredient in the 
foundation of our modern society, and we must do our part to make sure 
they retain their position and we retain our position as a prominent 
leader in scientific advancement and as a prominent leader in using 
science to advance our economy.
  One of the issues we discuss readily in the Committee on Science is 
the Nation's position internationally in the competitive arena of math 
and science. Math and science go to, as well, our position in advancing 
and discovering new technology.
  The ATP program puts us in a position to encourage those small 
businesses to ensure that we do have the right kind of funding to 
advance our position internationally. By cutting the funding for this 
program, we abandon a commitment that we made to the American people, 
which guarantees them that they will almost have immediate access to 
better products at an affordable price.
  Cutting the ATP and EDA program looks domestic support and domestic 
investment in the face and ignores our responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment and 
support the Advanced Technology Program.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise to oppose this amendment, which increases the 
funding for law enforcement, offsetting that increase with a budget cut 
in the Advanced Technology Program (ATP).
  I agree that law enforcement is an important issue, however, my 
problem with this amendment is where it takes its money from. The 
Advanced Technology Program provides valuable services to the entire 
nation, both directly and indirectly.
  Under the terms of this amendment, the funding for ATP would be 
decreased by $43 million dollars. That amount is exactly the amount for 
new awards for 1999. This program has served us well, and is a proven 
commodity. It is my firm belief that we ought to be increasing its 
funding rather than decreasing it.
  The Advanced Technology Program has already led to better Liquid 
Crystal Displays (LCDs), more accurate and faster DNA testing, and 
better sunscreens. These improved products are not only beneficial to 
our economy, because they produce marketable and successful goods, but 
they also improve our overall quality of life here in the United 
States. Better sunscreens means more people can enjoy the outdoors 
without worry, and better LCDs mean lighter and better displays on our 
computers and watches.
  I also want to dispel the notion that the Advanced Technology program 
is corporate welfare. In fact, more than half of the grants that are 
dispersed through the program go to small businesses and universities. 
These institutions need and deserve our help. Academia and small 
business are indispensable ingredients in the foundation of our modern 
society, and we must do our part to make sure they retain as prominent 
a role in our economy as multi-national conglomerates.
  Almost all of us agree, that our partnership with the private sector 
in the area of science has greatly benefitted our economy. If you have 
any doubts, just look to the Technology Transfer Act that was passed 
just a few weeks ago. By cutting the funding for this program we 
abandon a commitment that we made to the American people, which 
guaranteed them that they would have almost-immediate access to better 
products at an affordable price.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and to 
assure the American public that we stand committed to the well-being of 
this Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

[[Page H7135]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

   violent crime reduction programs, state and local law enforcement 
                               assistance

       For assistance (including amounts for administrative costs 
     for management and administration, which amounts shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' 
     account) authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended 
     (``the 1994 Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the 
     Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990 
     Act''); $2,371,400,000, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund; of which $523,000,000 shall be for Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grants, pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by 
     the House of Representatives on February 14, 1995, except 
     that for purposes of this Act, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico shall be considered a ``unit of local government'' as 
     well as a ``State'', for the purposes set forth in 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), (F), and (I) of section 
     101(a)(2) of H.R. 728 and for establishing crime prevention 
     programs involving cooperation between community residents 
     and law enforcement personnel in order to control, detect, or 
     investigate crime or the prosecution of criminals: Provided, 
     That no funds provided under this heading may be used as 
     matching funds for any other Federal grant program: Provided 
     further, That $20,000,000 of this amount shall be for Boys 
     and Girls Clubs in public housing facilities and other areas 
     in cooperation with State and local law enforcement: Provided 
     further, That funds may also be used to defray the costs of 
     indemnification insurance for law enforcement officers: 
     Provided further, That for the purpose of distribution of 
     grants under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program in 
     the State of Louisiana, or any other State the Attorney 
     General finds as having provisions within its constitution 
     similar to those of Louisiana which establish the office of 
     the sheriff in such State as an independent elected official 
     with its own taxing and spending authority, parish sheriffs 
     shall be eligible to receive a direct grant of 50 percent of 
     the funding otherwise provided to the parishes; of which 
     $45,000,000 shall be for grants to upgrade criminal records, 
     as authorized by section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Prevention Act of 1993, as amended, and section 4(b) of the 
     National Child Protection Act of 1993; of which $420,000,000 
     shall be for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, as 
     authorized by section 242(j) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, as amended; of which $730,500,000 shall be 
     for Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing 
     Incentive Grants pursuant to subtitle A of title II of the 
     1994 Act, of which $165,000,000 shall be available for 
     payments to States for incarceration of criminal aliens, of 
     which $25,000,000 shall be available for the Cooperative 
     Agreement Program, and of which $15,000,000 shall be reserved 
     by the Attorney General for fiscal year 1999 under section 
     20109(a) of subtitle A of title II of the 1994 Act; of which 
     $7,000,000 shall be for the Court Appointed Special Advocate 
     Program, as authorized by section 218 of the 1990 Act; of 
     which $2,000,000 shall be for Child Abuse Training Programs 
     for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 224 of the 1990 Act; of which $200,750,000 shall be 
     for Grants to Combat Violence Against Women, to States, units 
     of local government, and Indian tribal governments, as 
     authorized by section 1001(a)(18) of the 1968 Act, including 
     $23,000,000 which shall be used exclusively for the purpose 
     of strengthening civil legal assistance programs for victims 
     of domestic violence: Provided further, That, of these funds, 
     $5,200,000 shall be provided to the National Institute of 
     Justice for research and evaluation of violence against 
     women, and $1,196,000 shall be provided to the Office of the 
     United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for 
     domestic violence programs in D.C. Superior Court; of which 
     $39,000,000 shall be for Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies 
     to States, units of local government, and Indian tribal 
     governments, as authorized by section 1001(a)(19) of the 1968 
     Act; of which $25,000,000 shall be for Rural Domestic 
     Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance Grants, as 
     authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act; of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be for training programs to assist probation 
     and parole officers who work with released sex offenders, as 
     authorized by section 40152(c) of the 1994 Act; of which 
     $1,000,000 shall be for grants for televised testimony, as 
     authorized by section 1001(a)(7) of the 1968 Act; of which 
     $63,000,000 shall be for grants for residential substance 
     abuse treatment for State prisoners, as authorized by section 
     1001(a)(17) of the 1968 Act; of which $15,000,000 shall be 
     for grants to States and units of local government for 
     projects to improve DNA analysis, as authorized by section 
     1001(a)(22) of the 1968 Act; of which $900,000 shall be for 
     the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, as 
     authorized by section 240001(c) of the 1994 Act; of which 
     $750,000 shall be for Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
     Programs, as authorized by section 220002(h) of the 1994 Act; 
     of which $40,000,000 shall be for Drug Courts, as authorized 
     by title V of the 1994 Act; of which $1,500,000 shall be for 
     Law Enforcement Family Support Programs, as authorized by 
     section 1001(a)(21) of the 1968 Act; of which $2,000,000 
     shall be for public awareness programs addressing marketing 
     scams aimed at senior citizens, as authorized by section 
     250005(3) of the 1994 Act; and of which $250,000,000 shall be 
     for Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants, except 
     that such funds shall be subject to the same terms and 
     conditions as set forth in the provisions under this heading 
     for this program in Public Law 105-119, but all references in 
     such provisions to 1998 shall be deemed to refer instead to 
     1999: Provided further, That funds made available in fiscal 
     year 1999 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 1968 
     Act may be obligated for programs to assist States in the 
     litigation processing of death penalty Federal habeas corpus 
     petitions and for drug testing initiatives: Provided further, 
     That, if a unit of local government uses any of the funds 
     made available under this title to increase the number of law 
     enforcement officers, the unit of local government will 
     achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement officers 
     who perform nonadministrative public safety service.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Scott

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Scott:
       Page 28, line 5, insert after the amount `(reduced by 
     $105,000,000)' and insert as follows:
       Page 27, line 8, after the amount insert `(increased by 
     $36,500,000)';
       Page 28, line 14, after the amount insert `(increased by 
     $13,000,000)' and on line 16 after the amount insert 
     `(increased by $8,000,000)';
       Page 29, line 17, after the amount insert `(increased by 
     $12,000,000)'; and
       Page 30, line 3, after the amount insert `(increased by 
     $35,000,000)' and on line 4 after the amount insert 
     `(increased by $500,000)':

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would transfer one-half of 
the funds in the Truth in Sentencing Incentives Grant program, 
approximately $105 million, to crime prevention, drug treatment and 
family resource programs.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several reasons to move funds from the Truth 
in Sentencing Incentive Grant program to these other programs, the 
first of which is that half of the States do not even qualify for the 
truth in sentencing grants. States like Kentucky and West Virginia and 
Massachusetts do not even get funds out of this program.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, the truth in sentencing funds can only be spent 
for prison construction. At this point, some of the States that do 
qualify have already overbuilt prison space. For example, my own State 
of Virginia is trying to lease out to other States and the Federal 
Government some 3,200 excess prison beds. There is no reason for us to 
spend money to build prison beds in States that do not even need them.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, that we encourage States to adopt truth in 
sentencing systems is of dubious value. The so-called truth in 
sentencing scheme is actually the half-truth in sentencing. Proponents 
of truth in sentencing tell you that no one gets out early. That is the 
half-truth. The whole truth is that no one is held longer either.
  Mr. Chairman, when States adopt truth in sentencing schemes, the 
first thing they always do is to reduce the length of sentencing judges 
have been giving under the parole system and then direct the defendant 
serve all of the reduced sentence.
  For example, under a parole system, if a judge says 10 years, the 
average defendant will serve about a third of the time, with the lowest 
risk prisoners getting out as early as two years. But the worst 
criminals who cannot make parole serve the whole 10 years.
  But with truth in sentencing, everybody gets out at the same time. If 
the new sentence is 3\1/3\ years, you get 3\1/3\ years, you serve 3\1/
3\ years. The problem is that the lowest risk prisoners under that 
system will serve more time, while the most dangerous criminals who 
could not make parole and would have served all 10 years now get out in 
one-third of the time.
  If the State were to double the average time served, the worst 
criminals would still get out earlier than they do under the parole 
system. In fact, even if the State tripled the average time to be 
served, the worst criminals would then serve the same 10 years that 
they would serve under the parole system. The primary difference is 
that the taxpayers would have been bilked out of

[[Page H7136]]

billions of dollars by funding a politician's campaign slogan that has 
nothing to do with reduction of crime.
  Mr. Chairman, States are already spending tens of billions of dollars 
on prison construction every year, so this $105 million spread about 
the few States that actually qualify cannot possibly make any 
difference in the number of prison beds to be built, much less have any 
effect on the crime rate. But if that money is spent on prevention and 
treatment, we can make a significant difference in crime.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides for $36.5 million 
to go to increasing funds for building and running Boys and Girls Clubs 
and public housing and other sites for at-risk youth. Boys and Girls 
Clubs have been shown through study and research to be a cost effective 
way of reducing crime for at-risk youth. The amendment also provides 
$37 million for residential drug treatment for prisoners before they 
are released, and approximately $75 million for Drug Courts. Both 
prison drug treatment and Drug Courts have been shown not only to 
significantly reduce crime, but also to save money.
  The money for court-appointed special advocates, child abuse 
prevention, training and law enforcement and family support will reduce 
family violence and child abuse, which have been shown to reduce future 
crime.

                              {time}  1930

  We can all agree that assisting families of law enforcement officers 
who have died in the cause of duty is an appropriate thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, reduce 
crime, and save money.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment because it 
makes sense. I think a little history is in order here. The so-called 
truth-in-sentencing grants, the statute authorizing these grants was 
enacted back in 1994.
  From then until now, a GAO study reports that only four States 
changed their statutory practices to comply with these grants, only 
four States. In 4 years, there have been some 27 States that could in 
fact file an application to secure these grants, but it was clear that 
it was not the truth-in-sentencing authorizing legislation that 
encouraged those States to do it, they decided to do it on their own, 
as they should.
  It has also become clear that the 24 other States that do not qualify 
under the truth-in-sentencing grants have no intention to change their 
current statutory practices to qualify for these grants.
  By the way, as the gentleman from Virginia alluded to, there is 
absolutely no evidence that the monies that have already been expended 
through these grants in any way, shape, or form reduce crime or 
violence in this Nation. In fact, the 24 States that are not in 
compliance show a similar decline in violence and crime as those who 
have adopted a truth-in-sentencing statutory scheme.
  It does make common sense. In fact, it might be worthy of 
consideration that this particular program over a period of time be 
phased out. The gentleman seeks only to remove one-half, $105 million, 
from the truth-in-sentencing source for other programs.
  He has enumerated them in his own statement: prison drug treatment 
programs, boys and girls clubs, the drug court program, child abuse 
training programs. These programs, these programs would be available to 
every single State in the Nation.
  As I indicated, or as the gentleman from Virginia indicated, in my 
home State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has seen a dramatic 
decline in crimes of violence. In fact, the city of Boston has been 
used over and over again as an example of programs that do work in 
terms of prevention and treatment. Yet, the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts is not in a position to seek monies and funding because 
of the mandates under the truth-in-sentencing statute.
  So it does make sense. It is more fair. If we can divert these monies 
into programs that have been proven to work, every State in the Nation 
will benefit. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes for the 
Scott amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment 
because it basically takes $105 million from the State prison grant 
program. Regardless of where the money would go, that is the thrust of 
this amendment. That would cut the resources that we have provided in 
this Congress to build and expand much needed prison space.
  Show me one State in the Nation, I say to the gentleman, that is not 
overcrowded in their prison space, and I want to look at it very 
carefully. Even the Federal prison space is overcrowded.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I could ask two questions. One, I would ask, 
does the gentleman know Virginia is renting out space to other States 
because we have 3,000 beds we do not need?
  The other question is, could the gentleman tell me why Kentucky did 
not get any money at all from there?
  Mr. ROGERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman will 
have his time, the gentleman's amendment is an attack on a very 
important crime policy that passed this Congress, the policy that 
requires persons who commit crimes to be held accountable by serving 
prison time that fits the crime.
  If a State wants to take advantage of those funds, then they can do 
so, including my own State. I would hope that they would.
  The gentleman has offered amendments the last 3 years that would do 
nothing more than undo that policy. The point he is trying to make is 
that prisons do not work. I think that is what he has said in the past. 
A lot of us disagree. His attempts have failed before here because it 
is recognized that crime is reduced when violent criminals are locked 
up and off the streets, which this policy does for the Nation.
  Before Congress passed the violent offenders truth-in-sentencing law, 
violent offenders were serving only about 43 percent of their 
sentences. That means in 1994 murderers with an average sentence of 16 
years were released after serving only 7\1/2\ years. Rapists sentenced 
to 9 years were released after serving less than 5 years, Mr. Chairman.
  When we passed this legislation as part of this bill in 1995, only 12 
States were truth-in-sentencing States. Now more than half of all 
States lock up their offenders for at least 85 percent of their 
sentences, what the juries in those States gave the criminals.
  This program is the only source of funding to help States build 
prisons. With this money States build prisons, jails, juvenile 
facilities. They have developed tougher sentencing policies, policies 
that assure offenders serve at least 85 percent of the jury-imposed 
sentences. They deserve the support of Congress to ensure that adequate 
bed space is available to maintain those policies.
  While the gentleman's amendment would increase funding for other 
important crime programs, the bill already provides substantial 
increases for those programs. For example, we already provide a $9 
million increase for Violence Against Women Act programs, $9 million 
more than the President asked us to spend. We provide $63 million for 
the State prison drug treatment program. We already provide $40 million 
for drug courts, a $10 million increase over the current fiscal year. 
We added another $3 million earlier today, for a 43 percent increase in 
the funding for drug courts, which all of us agree are good things.
  The gentleman's amendment would also earmark an additional $56.5 
million in funds from the local law enforcement block grants for Boys 
and Girls Clubs, for which the bill already provides a $20 million 
boost. This would take away much needed funds for locally driven crime 
priorities, such as law enforcement personnel, overtime pay for police, 
technology for police, equipment for police, safety measures in 
schools, and drug courts.
  Crime is down across the country because we have provided a full 
arsenal of anticrime measures: more police with the tools and equipment 
they need, more prison space to make sure that criminals are held 
accountable for

[[Page H7137]]

their crimes and are not rearrested by these police after they are 
released prematurely, and quality prevention programs designed to 
reduce risks, after their release.
  We cannot afford to lose the ground we have gained. Last year, Mr. 
Chairman, 291 Members, Republicans and Democrats, voted to support the 
prison grant program and defeated the gentleman's amendment, which 
would have gutted the program. I urge the House again to defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I feel very 
strongly that we have an established pattern that is working relatively 
effectively, as the chairman has just said, with respect to what the 
Federal government's role is in attempting to assist the States to 
reduce an enormously big violent crime problem that has faced this 
Nation for some time.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) would take 
away a great deal of the incentive program that we have established in 
order to provide the resources for the States to accomplish this.
  The truth-in-sentencing grant program that was adopted in 1995 has 
been very successful. It has provided a change in the way the States 
behave with respect to certain aspects of how they sentence and how 
long people serve those sentences. Unfortunately, not enough States 
have adopted this program that we have suggested, so far.
  We started out, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said, in 
1994 with only 12 States requiring prisoners to serve at least 85 
percent of their sentences. We now have more than half the States who 
are on that program, who have laws that require that, at least in part. 
I think in large part those States that went through this procedure did 
it because they either knew or were interested in getting the prison 
grant monies that were under this bill.
  We need the other States to come into compliance, because the average 
length of sentencing at the time we started this process being served 
in this country was about 33 percent; that is, the amount of time they 
served for what they were given, it is now up to somewhere around 38 to 
40 percent, but it is still a very significant number in the sense that 
it is on the low side.
  We need every single prisoner in this country to get a message. If we 
are going to have deterrence, we need that prisoner or that felon who 
is convicted of these violent crimes to know they are going to serve 
the full measure, or as much of it as is responsible, of their 
sentence; at least 85 percent, in every single case, especially violent 
criminals.
  In 1960 we had approximately 160 violent crimes for every 100,000 
people in our population, in 1960. At the height of the violent crime 
crisis in this country, about 4 years ago, when we kind of peaked out 
before we had these truth-in-sentencing grants for building more 
prisons and encouraging States to come aboard the 85 percent rule, we 
had about 685 violent crimes for every 100,000 people in our 
population.
  We have improved that number a little. The crime rate has gone down 
slightly, only marginally. The last time it was 634 violent crimes for 
every 100,000 people in our population. Even after the slight reduction 
in violent crime in this country, it is four times more likely, when we 
go to a 7-11 at night to buy a carton of milk, that we are going to be 
raped, robbed, mugged, murdered, or something is going to happen in the 
way of a violent crime.
  That is totally unacceptable. We need to do everything we can to 
encourage the States, where most of this crime is committed, under 
State law, to require prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their 
sentences.
  That is not all that we have involved in this. Statistics show that 
40 percent of the persons on death row in 1992 were on probation, 
parole, or pretrial release when they committed their murders. Those 
statistics have not changed much since then, unfortunately. 
Imprisonment is used much less than other methods. On any given day, 
seven offenders are on the street for every three that are behind bars. 
I find that a remarkable and awful statistic to think about. We are not 
now talking about people out on the street not getting any sentence, we 
are talking about those who get sentences, any sentence, not serving 
all they should be serving.
  I am for boys and girls clubs. I think they are doing a terrific job 
in our cities. I am for the drug courts. All of us are. But to take 
money away from the incentive grant program in this bill to encourage 
States to go to truth-in-sentencing, to encourage States to change 
their laws to require prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their 
sentences, violent prisoners, is wrong.
  We need to keep what we have in this bill. We need to proceed to use 
the money that is available to encourage the States to do what they 
have not done, in those States that have not. We need to have the 
President of the United States and our other leaders lead a charge at 
the National Governors Conference and in the legislative halls of these 
States that have not complied to change their laws.
  This money in this bill could encourage that to happen, and I would 
suggest it is not going to happen without this money, because if the 
States cannot house these prisoners, they are not going to be willing 
to change their laws. If we do not change them and this does not 
happen, we are going to continue to have an unacceptably high violent 
crime rate in this country.

                              {time}  1945

  To the degree that that is there, it needs very badly to be 
continued.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I just want to bring to his attention a study that was commissioned by 
the GAO back in February of 1998, this year.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
it states, and I am quoting, The truth in sentencing grants were a key 
factor in four States, in four States.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not know 
anything about that study. I do not believe that that is true. I 
believe we passed this law in 1995. I know there were 12 States at the 
time we passed that law that had truth in sentencing, the 85 percent 
rule. There are now 28 States, I have just confirmed in checking, who 
have gone to that.
  I would believe, from all the evidence I know about as the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Crime, from talking to State legislators around 
the country, from talking to governors around this country, that the 
incentive grants program in this truth in sentencing had a lot to do 
with decisions in all of those States. Tell me who did the study and I 
will be glad to research their study.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I can bring this to the attention of the 
gentleman, because it is a report to congressional requesters. There 
were 7, 8 members of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. McCOLLUM.  Mr. Chairman, who is the report authored by?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The report is a GAO report. It is dated February 1998. 
It is described as truth in sentencing.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad 
to look at that. I am glad to know that GAO thinks that. I think they 
are wrong. I believe that our studies in the Subcommittee on Crime 
would say they are wrong. I have never seen that report before, never 
heard of that report. It does not make one wit of difference, because 
we need to provide such money out there to get them to do the job.
  I would seriously contest the validity of any study that shows that. 
This amendment should be defeated, if we are going to get the 85 
percent rule adopted in the other remaining States, the remaining ones 
other than the 28 that have done it. I urge in the strongest of terms 
that the Scott amendment be defeated.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

[[Page H7138]]

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Again, I just want to report that this is a GAO study. The requesters 
were members of the Committee on the Judiciary, including members of 
the Subcommittee on Crime, and it states that according to their 
research, truth in sentencing grants were a key factor in four States.
  The gentleman is right. There were 12 States prior to the enactment 
of the truth in sentencing incentive program back in 1994 that were in 
compliance. But my point is specifically this, those States that are 
not in compliance now show clearly that a decline in crime, in violence 
is commensurate with those States that have received grants, that the 
bottom line, common sense dictates that this particular program has 
done nothing whatsoever to reduce violent crime in this country.
  The States know what they are doing. The Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, as the gentleman knows, has an outstanding record in the 
reduction of crime and violence, and they are not in compliance. Let 
the States do what they know best, not the Federal Government, not 
bureaucrats in Washington. They know how to deal with the issue of 
violent crime.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to a couple of 
things that the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned.
  First of all, the amendment is drawn so that the money will come out 
of the truth in sentencing grant. It is a little complicated because of 
the way the truth in sentencing grant has been combined with others, 
but the amount of money, the legislative intent is to take it out of 
the truth in sentencing grant.
  The gentleman from Kentucky also indicated that we have suggested 
that prisons do not work. What we have said, Mr. Chairman, is that a 
scheme that increases the time for the lowest risk prisoners and 
decreases the time for the highest risk prisoners is not the effective 
use of prison space.
  I think it is appropriate now to give an example of what happens when 
you do these truth in sentencing schemes. As the gentleman whose name 
is nationally known, Richard Allen Davis, who was in jail on a serious 
crime, he was given six months to life. He was denied practice parole, 
denied parole, denied parole, until a California crackdown on crime 
abolished parole and resentenced everybody. He got 7.2 years. Turned 
out he had already served it. He was out. He got caught again on a 
serious offense. You get 8 years, you serve 8 years. They could not 
hold him longer than 8 years and had to let him out. Then he kidnapped 
and murdered Polly Klaas.
  If there had been a parole system where they could have held him 
longer, he would still probably be in jail on the first offense and 
certainly in jail on the second offense. That is why I call it half 
truth in sentencing, because the half truth is that nobody gets out 
early, but the whole truth is that you cannot hold people longer.
  This scheme also has another little effect. That is that those who 
are in prison have no longer any incentive in getting the education, 
the job training that actually makes a difference in recidivism rates. 
They know the day they get in, they know when they are going to get out 
so they do not have to get any education or job training.
  When truth in sentencing and abolishing parole was studied in 
Virginia, they found that spending $200 million per congressional 
district and $100 million per congressional district per year running 
the prisons would not make a statistically significant difference in 
the crime rate. That is what their study showed, not a statistically 
significant difference.
  That is why the amendment is to take the money out of that program 
and put it into some programs that will actually reduce crime.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am glad I got that off my 
chest.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to say that after listening to this debate, my 
colleague from Florida, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, is just as much in denial on the floor 
of the House as he is in the committee.
  The truth of the matter is that these truth in sentencing grants 
simply do not work for the purpose that he believes they do. We went 2, 
3 years ago, I was part of the Subcommittee on Crime at that time, went 
with the chairman of the subcommittee to the various States. And every 
place we went law enforcement people, including the folks that he said 
would say differently, that he invited, told the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Crime that this was not a good idea. It was not a good 
idea, including the Attorney General of California. I was there at the 
hearing when he told him that. This was not a good idea. This is a 
Republican Attorney General who is running for governor of California. 
He told him this was not a good idea.
  Yet we passed the bill. And now the GAO has told him that it is 
making no impact, minimal impact. Four States consider this a factor in 
whether they pass truth in sentencing laws. And he is back here on the 
floor saying we still ought to do this.
  We are wasting taxpayers money doing something that if we converted 
it to prevention programs, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
has suggested we do in this amendment, would be having some impact on 
the crime rate.
  He would like for us to take credit for the reduction in crime, but 
crime has gone down in all of these States where none of these grants 
have been given to anybody. It has got nothing to do with truth in 
sentencing grants being given to the States. Most of the States, 
including the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, whose bill 
this is, do not even get money under this grant program because they do 
not qualify. And they are not going to change their laws, because they 
are closer to the people and they have decided that the truth in 
sentencing scheme that we would appropriate from the Federal Government 
is not going to work in their States, just like the study that Virginia 
did that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has alluded to.
  So why are we doing this program? Because we want to stand up and 
beat our chests that truth in sentencing somehow is doing something 
that the GAO study says it is not doing, that the Attorney General of 
California has said it would not do, that everybody we heard who came 
to testify at those hearings all across America told them were not 
going to work.
  Yet this is something that the chairman of our subcommittee, the 
Subcommittee on Crime, has decided that he wants the Federal Government 
to impose on States. Contrary to all Federalism principles, we have no 
role at the Federal Government telling States how they ought to be 
sentencing. They are the legislators that are closest to the people.
  That is what we keep hearing from my colleagues who say that they 
believe in States rights but, over and over and over again, continue to 
confirm that they do not really believe in it. They just want to give 
lip service to it.
  This is all about the Federal Government trying to tell States how 
they ought to be sentencing prisoners, when State legislators know as 
much or more about this issue than we do here at the Federal level.
  This program is not working. We ought to take all of the money and 
transfer it into other programs, other than the money that has already 
been spoken for and applied for. That is what we ought to be doing with 
this.
  The proposal of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is a modest 
proposal, because he is proposing to take just a little part of it. And 
that part is not being used and it will not be used, because States 
have decided that this is a terrible idea, has no impact on crime and 
that they would make their own decisions about what makes sense out in 
the world, not allow the Federal Government to tell them what makes 
sense.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond a little bit to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

[[Page H7139]]

  I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) and for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the author 
of this amendment. But my recollection of the visits that we made, 
looking at the juvenile crime problem and the juvenile justice system 
around the country together, is quite different from that of the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  We discussed the problems that we have today of a lack of 
accountability. We listened to many hours, through 6 or 7 different 
State meetings, regional meetings actually, where we got most of the 
law enforcement officials and probation officers and judges and all 
kinds of folks to come to tell us what we could do about the juvenile 
crime problem and repairing a broken juvenile system.
  And we have adopted in this House H.R. 3, back in the last year of 
this Congress, the first year, and it has been funded, the program, the 
grant program, by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and this 
committee now twice, although the Senate has yet to adopt that program, 
to provide block grants to the States in order to improve their 
juvenile justice system, to provide more probation officers, to provide 
more juvenile judges, to provide more juvenile prosecutors, to provide 
more juvenile detention facilities, with a carrot in there that said, 
you cannot get this money unless you first start by taking the very 
first juvenile offender, when they have committed a very minor 
misdemeanor act, such as spray painting graffiti on a warehouse wall or 
running over a parking meter, and giving them some kind of punishment, 
not necessarily detention time but community service or whatever. 
States are beginning to pay attention to this.
  I would like to believe that this grant program will work, but that 
is a separate, entirely separate matter from the question of these 
truth in sentencing grants which were created some time ago.
  The process began actually when your party had the majority, but it 
was a Republican incentive. It was a Republican idea. Fortunately, we 
were able to modify it in 1995 and get these grants really going. I 
believe, because of the debate over the fact that we have had so much 
happening with this revolving door for violent criminals, we are not 
talking now about juveniles committing misdemeanors, we are talking 
about murderers, rapists, armed robbers, violent criminals, going 
through the revolving door, serving only a fraction of their sentences. 
Many murderers serving only 7 or 8 years, many others getting out with 
a third or less of their sentences being served and going out and 
committing crime after crime again and again and again, being the 
majority of the violent criminals in that category.
  We had a lot of debate over that. As a result of that debate here in 
this Congress on the floor of this House for several years in a row, I 
am quite confident that State legislators began to get the word.
  And I want you to know, I hope we both remember this, that Attorney 
General Dan Lundgren came to testify here in Congress as the Attorney 
General of the State of California in favor of the truth in sentencing 
grant program that we have here and that we are funding tonight. Not 
only that, but it was Dan Lundgren who authored, back in the 1980s, 
when he was in Congress in this body, who authored the provision that 
put the amount of time that has to be served by a Federal prisoner who 
commits a crime at 85 percent that started this whole process rolling 
in the first place.

                              {time}  2000

  So I am quite confident that Attorney General Lundgren fully supports 
truth in sentencing, fully supports what we are doing and have done up 
to this point with respect to trying to provide incentives to the 
States to stop the revolving door, to make those who commit violent 
crimes, murderers and rapists and robbers, serve the full measure of 
their sentences, because he understands that by getting them off the 
streets, locking them up and throwing away the keys, we can stop a 
great deal of crime in this country. And that has an awful lot to do 
with the violent crime reduction rate that is going on.
  Now, we may have some other good programs in States that do not have 
truth in sentencing laws, and in New York City and some other places 
there are other factors involved in reducing crime, a lot of crime that 
is not necessarily violent crime, and we do not pretend tonight to say 
the total solution is truth in sentencing, but it has a large measure 
to do with it and it is something the public really wants us to 
continue.
  And those other States, those other 22 States that have not yet 
adopted truth in sentencing, need to get with it. They need to require 
violent criminals, repeat felons to serve at least 85 percent of their 
sentences, to get them off the streets, to lock them up, to make them 
serve their full sentences, and hopefully they will never let them out 
again.
  And then we should be dealing with the juveniles at the early stages, 
where the gentleman and I went around the country and talked about the 
problems kids are going through with parents who are not paying enough 
attention, who are truants and delinquents and get into trouble very 
early on with the law but never go before a judge, often; in some 
cities are never taken in by the police because the juvenile justice 
system is overworked and it is broken in those communities, and we need 
to do these other things.
  But the answer to those parts of this problem does not require giving 
up this part. We have to do it all. We have to do both. It is not good 
to have half a loaf. We have to have a full loaf. So tonight I would 
encourage my colleagues again to defeat the Scott amendment. It is a 
bad amendment. It destroys a good program that does work. We will 
continue to reexamine that program, as others.
  I thank the gentleman from Minnesota very much for yielding me the 
time to respond and maybe to make a few points with respect to this, 
and I strongly urge the defeat of the Scott amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to give the Scott amendment a chance, 
and the reason why I say that is because there can be many 
interpretations to all that we have seen and all that we have heard.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), who I work 
with on the Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Crime, 
and I joined him on many of those hearings around the country. Maybe I 
heard something different but, Mr. Chairman, what I did hear is I heard 
that there is a great need for intervention and prevention.
  Now, this does not go in the face of locking up those who have done 
heinous crimes. This is not against the idea of violent criminals being 
incarcerated. But let me answer the gentleman from Florida and say that 
my State is one which is not qualified. It happens to be a State that 
has built and built and built prisons. In fact, we have built so many 
prisons that we are in the business of renting prison cells.
  And yet we are still seeing crime being perpetrated, and perpetrators 
upon perpetrators repeating these heinous acts to a certain extent, 
because maybe there is a reason where we cannot hold people when they 
need to be held. And the truth in sentencing responds, unfortunately, 
to that in the wrong way. So that when someone's time is over, it is 
over, and those violent criminals cannot be held.
  So we seem to be chasing our tails, saying in one instance, do not 
take the money out of this because it keeps the violent criminals 
incarcerated. I say it does not. And do my colleagues know what else it 
does? It helps to promote a situation where a young man whose case was 
presented on television the other evening, who got himself a little 
inebriated and had a spat with his girlfriend and another young man, 
with a clean record, a good family, he happened to barge into the 
girlfriend's apartment and punch the other fellow. The other fellow did 
not die, he was not hospitalized, but the young man was charged with 
breaking and entering and assaulting. He has 25 years in prison, and we 
are holding him under truth in sentencing. I imagine that State can 
apply for these monies, and yet he is not the kind of violent criminal 
who cannot be rehabilitated.

[[Page H7140]]

  The Scott amendment does things that I think are important. It puts 
money in the prison drug treatment programs. We already know that drugs 
are a devastation upon this society and these communities. And we also 
know that many of those who are addicted to drugs are incarcerated and 
are never rehabilitated, and they come right back out and join the 
cycle of either selling or possessing and using.
  The drug courts, which just a minute ago we were talking about 
funding it or adding more dollars. Boys and Girls Club, which is a 
well-known institution that goes into the very inner workings of rural 
and urban America and takes those children who are left out and put 
out. The Court Appointed Special Advocates, who help to nurture those 
children who are coming into the courtroom and provide some assistance 
if they are involved in a crime or if they are victims of a crime. The 
Child Abuse Training programs. How many times have we heard people rise 
to make points that those perpetrators of crimes have been victims of 
child abuse? How many times have we heard that I was a victim of child 
abuse? And then the Law Enforcement Family Support Program. These are 
the kinds of intervention measures that can provide the real 
prevention, what we are all trying to do.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say this. We have all heard about these 
numbers, that crime is going down. Well, if we read some of the recent 
articles coming out, we find out that these statistics may be skewed. 
There has been such a heavy pressure on local law enforcement 
officials, chiefs of police and sheriffs, that we do not know if these 
numbers are accurate. It may not be going down anyhow. And the number 
of incarceration units may not have been having a real impact on 
bringing down the crime.
  It may be that we have to stop and smell the roses. Give the Scott 
amendment a chance. Give the idea of prevention a real chance.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, because this is an important position which we should 
take.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
yielding to me.
  I do not know what States the chair of the subcommittee is referring 
to when he talks about murderers being held for 7 or 8 years, and 
rapists and muggers out on the street. I served as district attorney, 
as the gentleman knows, in the metropolitan area in Boston. Every 
single individual who was sentenced and incarcerated for first degree 
murder is still serving.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman continue to yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, every single inmate that 
was incarcerated for first degree murder is still serving that time. It 
has nothing to do with this particular amendment.
  At the same time I hear the gentleman from Florida telling or 
instructing or exhorting 22 States to get with it. Well, I would 
suggest to the gentleman that the reality is that those 22 States would 
show a decline in the reduction of violence as significant as those 
that are in compliance.
  The bottom line, and I know the gentleman shares this concern, and 
this is his purpose, is to see crime and violence reduced in America. 
But if the program is not working, it makes sense to take another look 
at it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I 
thank the gentleman, I think the ultimate question has to be do we 
stand on behalf of prevention and intervention, which the Scott 
amendment allows us to do, or do we follow the same path which has not 
shown a decided impact of what we would like it to do?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Scott, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out one thing, 
that we should not confuse percentage of time with length of time. 
Someone who gets the 5 years and serves 100 percent of the 5 years, 
serves 5 years. Someone that gets 100 years and serves 50 percent of 
that time would serve 50 years. That 50 years is not long enough to 
qualify under truth in sentencing because it is not 85 percent of the 
time.
  So we should not confuse the fact that some may be serving 100 
percent of a much shorter sentence than one-third or one-half of a much 
longer sentence. I just think there should not be that confusion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       weed and seed program fund

       For necessary expenses, including salaries and related 
     expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to 
     implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, $33,500,000 
     to remain available until expended, for intergovernmental 
     agreements, including grants, cooperative agreements, and 
     contracts, with State and local law enforcement agencies 
     engaged in the investigation and prosecution of violent 
     crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and Seed'' designated 
     communities, and for either reimbursements or transfers to 
     appropriation accounts of the Department of Justice and other 
     Federal agencies which shall be specified by the Attorney 
     General to execute the ``Weed and Seed'' program strategy: 
     Provided, That funds designated by Congress through language 
     for other Department of Justice appropriation accounts for 
     ``Weed and Seed'' program activities shall be managed and 
     executed by the Attorney General through the Executive Office 
     for Weed and Seed: Provided further, That the Attorney 
     General may direct the use of other Department of Justice 
     funds and personnel in support of ``Weed and Seed'' program 
     activities only after the Attorney General notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gutknecht:
       Page 31, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 47 line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,000,000)''.

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple amendment. 
We simply limit the funding for Public Telecommunications Facilities 
Program to what the President originally requested, $15 million, and 
use the additional $6 million to support the Weed and Seed Program, a 
comprehensive crime fighting and neighborhood revitalization program.
  Mr. Chairman, the story I am about to tell, if it were not published 
in several newspapers, I would have a difficult time believing myself, 
but it involves public broadcasting and what has happened over the last 
several years. And as Members will recall, after the 1994 elections 
many of us came in and said it is time to wean public broadcasting from 
taxpayer dollars.
  And at that time I remember we had some of the people from public 
broadcasting came to my office and we had some lengthy discussions 
about the value of public broadcasting as well as the costs, and what 
ultimately were being paid in terms of salaries to some of the 
executives at NPR and other public broadcasting entities. I remember at 
the time I was told that all of these reports that the salaries and the 
compensation were exorbitant were way overblown, and that these people 
were being paid less than they would be paid at broadcasting facilities 
of similar size in the private sector.
  We all believed that that was true. Then the facts began to come out, 
and let me give my colleagues some examples.
  What has really happened in public broadcasting, particularly back in 
Minnesota, is they have found very creative ways to take a nonprofit 
agency,

[[Page H7141]]

spin off for-profit companies, and then take some of those profits from 
that company, not so much just to help the broadcasting cause but to 
help themselves.
  For example, in 1995 one of the spin-offs of NPR, a company called 
Greenspring, had total sales of $135 million. Now, it was then that 
there were published reports that while the executive director, the 
president, was being paid $67,000, it was estimated his total 
compensation package was somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000. Well, 
they denied that and said it was not true. But later, when the facts 
came out, it was learned that in 1995 the total compensation for the 
gentleman in question was $291,000.
  Now, the story gets better. In 1996, it is estimated that the total 
compensation was $526,000. In fact, we subsequently learned, according 
to a copyrighted story in a Star Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis, that 
the total compensation was $75,000 from the Public Broadcasting 
Corporation but he had an additional $451,000, to give him a grand 
total compensation of $526,945.
  Now, I do not argue that executives should be well paid, and that is 
not my purpose here. But let me take this one step further. Another 
group they spun off as an umbrella corporation from NPR was a group 
called the Riverfront Trading Company. Now, in 1998, the spring of 
1998, it was sold off to the Dayton Hudson Corporation. As a result of 
that spin-off, not only was the president of NPR paid, with salary and 
bonuses from Greenspring, somewhere in the area of $500,000, he was 
also paid an additional bonus of $2.6 million. That was the bonus on 
top of his annual compensation.
  Now, I am not here to just bash this particular individual, but the 
numbers are a matter of public record now. The president was paid a 
total compensation in 1996 of $526,495, the vice president was paid 
$270,000, and another person who works for him was paid $529,000.
  The point of all of this is that we have lost the battle about 
completely cutting the umbilical cord of public broadcasting, but the 
President came in this year and asked for $15 million for the Public 
Telecommunications Facilities Program, and in this appropriation bill 
we have awarded them $21 million. We believe we should at least go back 
to the original request.
  We have found that people in public broadcasting can be extremely 
creative in terms of ways that they can turn a dollar, especially if 
some of those dollars can return to them. I am in favor of some form of 
bonuses. I think these seem to be a bit steep. But frankly, we can take 
that additional $6 million and put it into a program which has shown 
that it is making a real difference in our core cities, and that is the 
Weed and Seed Program.
  This is a comprehensive crime fighting, neighborhood revitalization 
program that really attacks our problems of high crime, drugs, all the 
problems we see in our inner cities, and we attack it with a twofold 
approach:

                              {time}  2015

  First of all, aggressively fighting the crime, the drug sales and 
trafficking that goes on in the inner cities; and then, secondly, using 
some of the funds as grants to encourage more economic development.
  I think this is a good amendment. It is a fair amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment to cut funding for the Public Communications Facilities 
Program, PTFP.
  This is not so much an increase in Weed and Seed, again which we 
think is an excellent program and well-funded, as it is a slap and a 
cut at PTFP. The Public Telecommunications and Facilities Program is 
extremely important and the bill provides $21 million for it, the same 
funding level as provided in fiscal year 1998.
  It is important to note $21 million is considerably less than is 
actually needed. In fact, America's public television stations are 
requesting $56.25 million in fiscal year 1999 for PTFP. This is year 
one in a four-year request totaling $225 million.
  Now, this significant investment would be used to help our public 
radio and TV stations convert to a digital system, something the FCC is 
requiring them to do by May of 2003 and which they are going to be 
extremely hard-pressed to do unless they have this funding. It is 
evident that indeed additional funds above and beyond the $21 million 
provided in this bill are necessary to begin this costly transition 
process.
  Many will have to build new towers, extremely expensive to do, at a 
cost of $1 million to $3 million each. These stations simply do not 
have the resources, many of them, to make that kind of investment. 
Others will have to modify their towers and antennas to accommodate the 
height and strength necessary to support new or additional antennas 
necessary for this new digital system.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, PTFP is an extraordinarily beneficial 
program. We must fund it at a level which allows our public radio and 
TV stations to convert to digital. Cutting the program at this time is 
an extremely bad idea. If anything, we should be providing additional 
funds, additional resources.
  To that end, Mr. Chairman, I intend to support the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), which will be offered later, I 
hope, which will increase funding, and certainly urge my colleagues to 
vote against this ill-advised amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there is some misunderstanding about what is in this 
bill. We do not fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We do not 
fund the Public Broadcasting System. None of that is in this bill.
  What this bill covers is funding for your home State towers, for 
facilities locally, and not the national programming here in Washington 
that has been described. So this bill does none of that. What we do 
provide in the bill is funding for your State public broadcasting 
facilities, towers, equipment, that type of thing, on a grant basis 
through the MTIA program.
  The bill provides a total of $40 million for the Weed and Seed 
Program in the Justice Department, which is a $6.5 million increase 
over the current level and the full amount that was requested, and at 
the same time the bill freezes the MTIA's Public Telecommunications 
Facilities Program, PTFP. We freeze that level at the 1998 spending 
level.
  This amendment, I think mistakenly, would cut PTFP by 29 percent 
below the freeze level. And, as I say again, it would not touch PBS or 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because we have no money in 
this bill. That is in another bill.
  While I certainly support the Weed and Seed Program, we have provided 
very healthy increases for Weed and Seed in the bill already, Mr. 
Chairman. At the same time, the PTFP program has been frozen due to our 
budget priorities, despite the fact that the need for the program has 
grown as public television and radio are struggling financially to try 
now to convert to the new digital telecommunications environment that 
will be with us in a matter of months.
  In addition, I might note that because of our budget constraints over 
the last 3 years, total funding for the PTFP program has been decreased 
by 28 percent, and this amendment would cut it another 29 percent.
  So I think the gentleman perhaps is misguided in his amendment, and I 
would encourage him to take on the PBS and the CPB in whatever bill he 
would like, but this one does not have any funds in it for those two 
systems. All as we have, as I say, is money for our State and local 
public broadcasting facilities, not salaries or anything else.
  So I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to comment on this case about the Weed and Seed Program. I 
think it is an extraordinarily good program. It was created back in the 
Bush Administration, one that Attorney General Barr was very active in 
pursuing, one which on the ``Seed'' part of it has had a little bit 
more attention than the ``Weed'' part in recent years in the Clinton 
Administration, but nonetheless a good program.
  As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) was describing, it is 
a program in which the Justice Department goes out through the U.S. 
Attorneys and through a grant program and through money efforts they 
have to go

[[Page H7142]]

into pockets of specialty areas in the community where there is a lot 
of crime, and they attempt to enforce the laws, to really clean up that 
area, to have the prosecutions occur that clean that neighborhood up, 
if you will, and then provide some grants and some incentives to get 
kids who may be going the wrong way, help the neighborhood get them on 
the right track in terms of programs that can induce them to not go 
down this deviant path of crime.
  It is effective in such things as Operation Trigger Lock, which again 
the Bush Administration operated a lot more than this administration 
has, where we took those who committed crimes with guns, and maybe they 
were State crimes and they had been repeat criminals in this regard. 
They were felons, convicted already, and there is a Federal law that 
says a felon cannot possess a gun.
  And a State or a local government would arrest this fellow for 
whatever it might be, can only hold him for so long if it is a basic 
crime, but the attorney general would require under his guidance in 
those days the U.S. Attorney to go in and charge that person with the 
gun crime at the Federal level, for the simple possession of that gun 
as a convicted felon, and be able to get a sentence that would keep him 
off the street a lot longer.
  Those kinds of programs were effective and are effective, if they are 
working properly, to clean up an area in a neighborhood and then go and 
seed it through the grant programs in the Department of Justice to 
allow us to keep it clean.
  I think what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is trying 
to do here is a noble, positive thing to do.
  I would like to make one other comment about the issue at hand about 
broadcasting. I think all of us want to see this conversion to digital. 
I think tough choices have to be made in bills like this. 
Unfortunately, we cannot simply create more money for a program like 
Weed and Seed. We have to take it from somewhere, which is why I am 
sure the spending levels are where they are, and my good friends the 
chairman and the ranking member want to keep it that way because they 
already made that choice. But I would, with all due respect, concur 
with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) on that point.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do 
not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to put a couple other 
facts on the record.
  Even the President recognizes that this is a very low priority item. 
In his FY 1998 budget request, he requested zero funds for this 
program. He received $21 million anyway. This year he requested $15 
million and we are giving him another $21 million.
  I think what I tried to demonstrate with my earlier remarks about 
what is happening in Minnesota, these people are extremely creative. 
They will figure out a way to fund these enhancements. And I understand 
that this is not where we will talk mostly about the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting.
  But I really think this is one area where we at least ought to honor 
the President's budget request, use those additional funds for programs 
that we think really do make a difference in the inner city.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  Community Oriented Policing Services


                    violent crime reduction programs

       For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 (``the 1994 
     Act'') (including administrative costs), $1,400,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall be derived from 
     the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for Public Safety and 
     Community Policing Grants pursuant to title I of the 1994 
     Act: Provided, That not to exceed 266 permanent positions and 
     266 full-time equivalent workyears and $32,023,000 shall be 
     expended for program management and administration: Provided 
     further, That, of the unobligated balances available in this 
     program, $170,000,000 shall be used for innovative policing 
     programs, of which $50,000,000 shall be used for a law 
     enforcement technology program, $50,000,000 shall be used for 
     policing initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and 
     trafficking and to enhance policing initiatives in drug ``hot 
     spots'', $20,000,000 shall be used for programs to combat 
     violence in schools, $25,000,000 shall be used for bullet 
     proof vests for law enforcement officers, $10,000,000 shall 
     be used for additional community law enforcement officers and 
     related program support for the District of Columbia Offender 
     Supervision, Defender, and Court Services Agency, and 
     $15,000,000 shall be used for equipment and training for 
     tribal law enforcement officers.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blagojevich

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blagojevich:
       Page 32, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  (Mr. BLAGOJEVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am sponsoring would 
earmark the remaining $5 million balance in unobligated, community-
oriented policing services from Fiscal Year 1998 to the Department of 
Justice for the expansion of community prosecution programs across our 
Nation.
  Let me emphasize that these dollars are not committed and my 
amendment does not take funding away from any other law enforcement 
priorities within the bill.
  Community prosecution programs represent the next step in community-
based crime prevention programs. Just as police officers are assigned 
to a beat under community policing programs like COPS, community 
prosecutors work with residents of specific communities to identify, 
interdict, and remove those conditions in neighborhoods that become 
breeding grounds for crime.
  Too often people only have contact with prosecutors when they are 
victims of crime. This $5 million will provide much-needed resources to 
help prosecutors join with police to address local crime problems by 
reorienting their emphasis from assembly-line processing of cases to 
taking on quality-of-life issues and preventing crimes from happening 
in the first place. The thinking behind this concept is this: If we fix 
the broken windows early on, we can stop crime before it starts.
  These programs are supported by groups like the National District 
Attorneys Association, and have been successful across our Nation in 
towns as small as Rosebud, Montana to cities as large as Chicago, 
Illinois.
  This notwithstanding, these programs continue to struggle for 
resources. This $5 million will provide a sheltered funding resource to 
develop and sustain existing programs as well as provide incentives to 
create new ones.
  My amendment has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as 
being revenue neutral and has been written in cooperation with both the 
staff of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the staff of the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and 
support its adoption.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my 
understanding that the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) is in agreement with this. I would like to thank the 
gentleman, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
        In addition, for programs of Police Corps education, 
     training, and service as set forth

[[Page H7143]]

     in sections 200101-200113 of the 1994 Act, $20,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, which shall be derived from 
     the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

                       juvenile justice programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith to be transferred and merged 
     with the appropriations for Justice Assistance, $265,950,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That these 
     funds shall be available for obligation and expenditure upon 
     enactment of reauthorization legislation for the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (H.R. 1818 or 
     comparable legislation).
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance, $10,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, for developing, testing, and demonstrating programs 
     designed to reduce drug use among juveniles.
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act of 1990, as amended, $7,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 214B of the Act.

                    public safety officers benefits

       To remain available until expended, for payments authorized 
     by part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), as amended, such sums 
     as are necessary, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law 
     100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340); and $250,000 for the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Program, as authorized 
     by section 1212 of said Act.

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

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

                              {time}  2030


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``General provisions--
     Department of Justice'', strike section 103.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment be limited to 20 minutes to be divided equally between the 
sides, 10 on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. On this amendment and all amendments thereto?
  Mr. ROGERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 
10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is very 
straightforward. What it simply does is strike the language in the bill 
which prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion services for 
women in Federal prison. Unlike most other American women who are 
denied coverage of abortion services, women in prison have no money, 
nor do they have access to outside financial help, nor do they have 
income which will allow them to obtain these services for themselves. 
Inmates in Federal prisons are completely dependent upon the Bureau of 
Prisons for all of their needs, including food, shelter, clothing and 
every single aspect of their medical care. These women are not able to 
work at remunerative jobs that would allow them to pay for their 
medical services, including abortion services, which I will point out 
to the House are still legal in this country. In fact, last year 
inmates working on the general pay scale earned from 12 cents to 40 
cents per hour, or roughly $5 to $16 per week. The average cost of an 
early, outpatient abortion in this country ranges from $200 to $400. 
Abortions after the 13th week in this country cost $400 to $700, and 
abortions after the 16th week, which none of us really favor at all, go 
up $100 more per week, ending at about $1200 to $1500 in the 24th week.
  Even if a woman in Federal prison earned the maximum wage on the 
general pay scale and worked 40 hours per week, she would never have 
the money to pay for an abortion in the first trimester. After that, 
the cost of an abortion rises so dramatically that even if the female 
inmate saves her entire salary, she would never ever be able to afford 
a legal abortion.
  If Congress denies women in Federal prison coverage of abortion 
services, it is effectively shutting down the only avenue these women 
have to pursue their constitutional rights to a safe and legal 
abortion.
  Let me remind my colleagues again, for the last 25 years in this 
country, women in this country have had the right legally and 
constitutionally to abortion. With the absence of funding by the very 
institution prisoners depend on for health services, women prisoners 
are, in effect, coerced into pregnancy by this bill.
  Let me talk just for a minute about the kinds of women who are 
entering prison today in this country. Most women entering prison are 
victims of physical and sexual abuse, some incest victims which would 
not be excluded by this bill, two-thirds of them are incarcerated for 
drug offenses, and many of them are HIV infected or have full-blown 
AIDS. Does Congress think that it is in this country's best interests 
to force these women against their will to carry these pregnancies to 
term? And what happens to the children of the women who are bearing 
these unwanted children in prison? These children are taken from their 
mothers at birth to an uncertain future. I do not see any provision in 
this bill that provides for quick adoption of these children or other 
means by which they can have a fulfilled life that would not follow in 
the tracks of their incarcerated parents.
  This bill, make no mistake about it, is about forcing women against 
their will to have a child. It is downright foolish and cruel to force 
women in Federal prisons to bear children in prison when that child 
will be taken from them at birth to an uncertain future. In 1993, 
Congress did the right thing when it overturned this barbaric policy. I 
urge my colleagues to do the same today and to support the DeGette 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
The provision in this bill the amendment seeks to strike does one thing 
only, it prohibits Federal tax dollars from paying for abortions for 
Federal prison inmates except in the case of rape or the life of the 
mother.
  The bill requires that the Bureau of Prisons escort inmates to a 
private facility if they want abortion services. The provision that we 
have in the bill, Mr. Chairman, is a long-standing provision. It has 
been carried in nine of the last 10 bills that we have brought to the 
floor of the House. The House rejected this very same amendment to last 
year's appropriations bill by a vote of 155-264, the previous year by a 
voice vote, and two years ago by a vote of 146-281.
  Time and again, the House has debated this issue of whether Federal 
tax dollars should pay for abortion. The answer has always been ``no.'' 
I urge the House to say ``no'' again. I urge rejection of the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette 
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, because 
this allows women in prison the option of abortion services. Quite 
simply the amendment offers the coverage of abortion services to women 
who are solely dependent on Federal resources.
  Mr. Chairman, 6 percent of incarcerated women are pregnant when they

[[Page H7144]]

enter prison. Many are victims of physical and sexual abuse. Women in 
prison have no resources. They usually have no means to borrow or 
little support from the outside. It is time to honor the Supreme 
Court's decision of Roe v. Wade by acknowledging it is every woman's 
right to have access to a safe, reliable abortion. Restrictions placed 
on incarcerated women are especially mean-spirited. These women are 
totally dependent on the Federal Government for all of their basics. 
Why should the government put a limit on what is constitutionally every 
woman's right?
  Mr. Chairman, we must stop the rollbacks on women's reproductive 
freedoms. We must provide women with education and the resources to 
prevent unwanted pregnancies. Let us vote for the DeGette amendment and 
address the desperate conditions these women face.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the able gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the very good gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence against children and in no way 
could be construed to be humane or compassionate. A child's worth and 
inherent dignity is not determined by who his or her mother happens to 
be. And the value of a baby is not diminished one iota because Mom 
happens to be an inmate. As a matter of fact, the woman's God-given 
value is not diminished, either. Yet the pending DeGette amendment 
would force taxpayers to subsidize violence against children, in this 
case the child of an inmate.
  Mr. Chairman, I truly believe that many Americans are either 
uninformed or living in a state of denial on the issue of abortion, 
especially as it relates to the gruesome reality of abortion methods. 
Abortion methods are violence against children and include dismembering 
innocent children with razor blade tip suction devices that turn kids 
into a bloody pulp, or injections of chemical poisons designed to kill 
the baby, or the kids are executed by partial-birth abortion, a 
gruesome method that many Members are now familiar with.
  Peel away the euphemisms that sanitize abortion and the cruelty to 
children and, yes, the cruelty to their mothers as well becomes readily 
apparent. The entire smoke screen of choice turns the baby into 
property, a thing, a commodity and not a someone. Truly a person is a 
person no matter how small. Thus the whole rhetoric of choice 
dehumanizes our brothers and sisters in the womb and puts them in the 
same category as junk cars, broken TV sets and busted stereos. They are 
throwaways. The whole rhetoric of choice reduces unborn babies to 
objects. The early feminists had it right: Do not treat women as 
objects. Unborn girls and boys are not objects, either.
  Mr. Chairman, if you have ever watched an unborn child's image on an 
ultrasound or sonogram screen, you cannot help but be awed by the 
miracle of human life, by the preciousness of a child's being, and then 
be moved to pity by the helplessness and the vulnerability of that 
child, by the fragility of those tiny fingers and toes. To see an 
unborn child turning and kicking and sucking his or her thumb while 
still in utero shatters the myth that abortion merely removes tissue or 
the products of conception.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion violence treats pregnancy as a sexually 
transmitted disease. The growing child is viewed as a tumor, a wart, as 
I said, as garbage.
  During the debate in 1995, the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was then the sponsor of this amendment, 
asked, ``Who will speak for these children? We must speak for these 
children.'' Then the distinguished gentlewoman urged government 
subsidized abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, it turns logic on its head to suggest that subsidizing 
violent acts of dismemberment and chemical poisoning to be somehow pro-
child.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, Mother Teresa was right when she said, ``The 
greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is a war 
against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child. Any country 
that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use 
violence to get what they want. That is why it is the greatest 
destroyer of love and peace.''
  ``Please don't kill the baby,'' she admonished.
  Mr. Chairman, finally, the baby of an inmate is just as important as 
any other child on Earth. Reject government funding of violence against 
children. I urge the membership to vote ``no'' on the DeGette 
amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. 
Chairman, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment which would remove 
the ban on access to abortion services for incarcerated women except in 
cases of rape of life endangerment.
  There are currently more than 8,000 women incarcerated in Federal 
Bureau of Prisons facilities. Most of the women are young, have been 
frequently unemployed, and many have been victims of physical or sexual 
abuse. According to a recent survey, 6 percent of women in prisons and 
4 percent of women in jail were pregnant when admitted. Limited 
prenatal care, isolation from family and friends, and the certain loss 
of custody of the infant upon birth present unusual circumstances and 
exacerbate an already difficult situation if the pregnancy is 
unintended.
  Because Federal prisoners are totally dependent on health care 
services provided by the Bureau of Prisons, this ban in effect prevents 
these women from exercising their constitutional right, their right to 
abortion. Most women prisoners were poor when they entered prison and 
they do not earn any meaningful compensation from prison jobs. This ban 
then closes off their only opportunity to receive such services, and 
thereby denies them their rights under the Constitution.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield I minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeGette 
amendment. This amendment would strike from the bill section 103 which 
prohibits Federal funding of abortions for Federal prisoners except for 
the life of the mother or in case of rape.
  It is outrageous that the pro-abortion advocates want to force the 
American taxpayers to pay for the abortions of Federal prisoners. 
Instead of sending the message to Federal prisoners that the answer to 
their problem is to kill their unborn babies, let us urge them to take 
responsibility and consider what is best for the child they are 
carrying. Let us not compound the problem with an act of violence on 
top of an act of violence.
  When this issue was debated in 1995, one of the supporters of this 
pro-abortion amendment asked the Members of the House, ``Who will speak 
for these children?'' Then she went on to declare, ``We must speak for 
these children.''
  If this is true, we must speak for the children, then I guess those 
who support this amendment believe that the unborn children of Federal 
prisoners want to be killed by their mothers. We should not vote for 
the death of unborn children at the expense of all American taxpayers.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the DeGette amendment.

                              {time}  2045

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeGette amendment.
  I rise to support the amendment authored by Congresswoman DeGette to 
strike language in the bill prohibiting federal funds from being used 
for abortions for women in prison.
  A year ago, this issue made the headlines in Oregon when a woman who 
was arrested in McMinnville, OR requested an abortion. For personal 
reasons, this woman decided she would not become a mother. It is not 
for us to judge her on this decision or any other choice she made in 
her life that put her in jail.
  Yamhill County's jail policy mandated that inmates must pay for the 
procedure themselves, and could have access to this service. Even 
though tax payer dollars were not used for this procedure, the county 
did allow this woman a release from jail to seek an abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, this ban is wrong. How can we discriminate against 
those in jail?

[[Page H7145]]

  The political agenda of politicians must not jeopardize the health of 
women. Access to abortion is a legal right. A woman should not lose 
access to reproductive health care, including abortions, because she is 
in jail.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DeGette Amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeGette amendment to 
strike the ban on abortion funding for women in Federal prisons. This 
ban is cruel and unwarranted.
  Mr. Chairman, a woman's sentence to prison should not include forcing 
her to carry a pregnancy to term. Most women in prison are poor, have 
little or no access to outside financial help, and earn between 12 to 
40 cents per hour at prison jobs. They are totally dependent on the 
prisons for their health services. They cannot possibly finance their 
own abortions, and therefore, without the passage of this amendment, 
they are in effect denied their constitutional right to an abortion.
  Many women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse and are 
pregnant before entering prison. They will almost certainly be forced 
to give up their children at birth. Why should we add to anguish by 
denying them access to reproductive services?
  I know full well the authors of this bill would take away the right 
to choose from all American women if they could, but since they are 
prevented from doing so by the Supreme Court, they have instead 
targeted their restrictions on helpless women in prison.
  Well, watch out, America. After they have denied reproductive health 
services to all women in prison, Federal employees, women in the armed 
forces and women on public assistance, then they will try again to ban 
all abortions in the United States. And they will not stop there. We 
know that many of them want to eliminate contraceptives as well.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a slippery slope that denies the reality of 
today, punishes women, and threatens their health and safety. This 
radical agenda must be stopped now. I urge my colleagues to support the 
DeGette amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Colorado, 
the sponsor of this amendment, which I have sponsored in the past 
because a woman gives up many constitutional rights when she goes to 
prison, but not the right to have control over the most profound impact 
on her body. She does not, she must not, be said to submit herself to 
forced childbirth.
  I have sponsored a GAO report, now in the making, because of the 
extraordinary rise of women in prison. The rate of HIV infections and 
AIDS for women in prison exceeds the rate for men, and 5 percent of 
women who enter Federal prisons are pregnant.
  Why Federal dollars? Because these women are without any way to have 
an abortion. We would not come forward at this time or ever, given 
where this Congress has been, to ask for Federal funds for abortions 
unless we were dealing with helpless women who had no other way to get 
an abortion.
  Not to allow this particularly, when we consider that we are talking 
about many women who have AIDS, who would be quite unfit as mothers, 
not to allow abortions in these circumstances would be entirely cruel, 
and I ask that an exception be made and that these Federal funds be 
allowed for women in prison.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from New Jersey talks about 
the terrible abortion procedures, and the truth is my colleague would 
ban all abortions, and I understand that. But that is not the law of 
this country. The law of this country is that women have a right to 
abortion.
  But the way this bill is written, women in prison, because of the low 
amount they would make, would only be able to afford an abortion if 
they waited until the third trimester, which is a result no one in this 
room would like to have. It is much more compassionate for the 
prisoners, it is much better for everybody if it is done in the first 
trimester when it is safe and it protects the mother's health.
  It is the right thing to do, it is the compassionate thing to do, and 
it is the legal thing to do. I urge support of the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the very able chairman of the House 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 4 
minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for giving me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, once again the solution to a problem is death, kill 
somebody.
  If my colleague saw the movie, recent movie, Saving Private Ryan, 
there is a line in there where Tom Hanks, playing the captain in the 
infantry, says:
  ``Every time I kill somebody I feel farther away from home.''
  Why is it that we have to in this discussion never talk about the 
baby?
  I listened to every word from the other side, and they drip with 
compassion, and rightly so, but only for the woman: the plight of the 
woman; the woman is being coerced by this law into having a baby; the 
woman, HIV cases. I understand that.
  But do my colleagues not know there is a baby involved, too? Is that 
a cipher? A zero? Is that an used Kleenex to be thrown away? The whole 
question revolves around what my colleagues think of human life.
  Now we could solve a lot of problems if we carry to the logical 
consequences this devaluation of life. We could empty the nursing 
homes. We could get rid of the incorrigibly poor. We could get rid of 
the useless eaters, as Hitler called them, the homeless people, the 
people who are not pulling their weight, who are not contributing to 
our society, the people who infect other people with diseases.
  Get rid of the people.
  So here, where the little child has been conceived unfortunately by a 
woman in prison, my colleagues' solution is to get rid of the child, 
the innocent human life.
  Now, we can define that out of existence and say that is not alive, 
we do not know what that is, that is a cancerous tumor, that is a 
diseased appendix, they want to just excise it and throw it away. But 
it is not. That is self-deception. It is a tiny little member of the 
human family, and that little tiny member of the human family has a 
right to life, and that life is precious.
  Yes, it is the most inauspicious, humble beginning anybody could 
have. Almost as bad as being born in a stable, being born in a jail of 
a mother who is incarcerated. But, by God, it is life, it is an 
opportunity. ``Life'' means hope, and give that little child his or her 
life. He or she did not ask for that humble, inauspicious beginning, 
but that does not mean that person is foreclosed from leading a full 
life later on.
  There are hundreds of places that will take those children. Here is a 
directory of them all over the country. There are about four of them 
within walking distance of Capitol Hill. So, the child will not be 
abandoned or thrown away in a wastebasket. It is a human life, and it 
is precious, and human life ought to mean something in this country 
where our birth certificate says everyone is created equally and is 
endowed by their Creator with an inalienable right to life.
  Think of the woman, yes. But think of the little baby, too. Do not 
throw that human life away.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. Yes, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Distinguished Chairman, I would just ask a question.
  How does the gentleman from Illinois feel about that little baby 
which would be born against its mother's will, probably HIV positive, 
and ripped from the arms of its mother at birth only to be taken away 
to one of those agencies he points to?
  Mr. HYDE. Better that than to be killed. Give that little baby a 
chance

[[Page H7146]]

to enjoy a Christmas sometime, to enjoy the love of somebody who can 
love that child.
  Mr. Chairman, let us give that little life the chance we had.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity 
to speak on this important amendment. As an advocate for Women's Choice 
I strongly support Representative DeGette's amendment. Representative 
DeGette's amendment will strike the language in the Commerce Justice 
State Appropriations bill which would prohibit Federal funds from being 
used for abortions in prison.
  Abortion is a legal health care option for American women, and has 
been for over 20 years. Because Federal prisoners are totally dependent 
on health care services provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the ban, in 
effect will prevent these women from seeking the needed reproductive 
health care that should be every woman's right--the right to choose an 
abortion.
  We know that most women who enter prison are poor. Many of them are 
victims of physical and sexual abuse, and some of them are pregnant 
before entering prison. An unwanted pregnancy is a difficult issue in 
even the most supportive environs. However, limited prenatal care, 
isolation from family and friends and the certain custody loss of the 
infant upon birth present circumstances which only serve to worsen an 
already very dire situation.
  In 1993, Congress lifted the funding restrictions that since 1987 had 
prohibited the use of federal funds to provide abortion services to 
women in federal prisons except during instances of rape and life 
endangerment. Women who seek abortions in prison must receive medical, 
religious, and/or social counseling sessions for women seeking 
abortion. There must be written documentation of these counseling 
sessions, and any staff member who morally or religiously objects to 
abortion need not participate in the prisoner's decision-making 
process.
  There was a 75 percent growth in the number of women in Federal 
prisons over the last decade. Currently, the growth rate for women is 
twice that of men in prison. Yet, the rate of infection of HIV and AIDS 
in women exceeds the rate of infection for men in prison, and pregnant 
women are of course at risk of passing on this disease to their unborn 
children.
  This ban on federal funds for women in prison is another direct 
assault on the right to choose. This ban is just one more step in the 
long line of rollbacks on women's reproductive freedoms. We must stop 
this assault on reproductive rights.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Degette 
amendment, which would strike language banning the use of federal funds 
for abortion services for women in federal prisons.
  Women in prison have committed criminal activity, and through our 
judicial system we certainly need to seek appropriate responses to 
illegal actions. Women in prison are being punished for the crime that 
they committed. However, this is a separate issue from that which we 
are addressing. Today we discuss civil liberties and rights which are 
protected for all in America, and remain so even when an individual is 
incarcerated.
  Abortion is a legal health care option for women in America. Since 
women in prison are completely dependent on the federal Bureau of 
Prisons for all of their health care services, the ban on the use of 
federal funds is a cruel policy that traps women by denying them all 
reproductive decision-making. The ban is unconstitutional because 
freedom of choice is a right that has been protected under our 
constitution for twenty-five years.
  Furthermore, the great majority of women who enter our federal prison 
system are impoverished and often isolated from family, friends and 
resources. We are dealing with very complex histories that often, 
tragically, include drug abuse, homelessness, and physical and sexual 
abuse. Many women are pregnant upon entering the prison system. To deny 
basic reproductive choice would only make worse the crises faced by the 
women and the federal prison system.
  The ban on the use of federal funds is a deliberate attack by the 
anti-choice movement to ultimately derail all reproductive options. As 
we begin chipping away basic reproductive services for women, I ask 
you, what is next? Denial of OBGYN examinations and mammograms for 
women inmates? Who is next? Women in the military, women who work for 
the government, or all women who are insured by the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits plan? Limiting choice for incarcerated women puts other 
populations at great risk. This dangerous, slippery-slope erodes the 
right to choose, little by little.
  It is my undying belief that freedom of access must be 
unconditionally kept intact; therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues 
to protect this constitutional right for women in America and vote 
``Yes'' on the Degette amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate 
     in any way the performance of, any abortion.
       Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the 
     obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to establish and publicize a program under which 
     publicly advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which 
     shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in 
     sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a 
     maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal 
     approval of the President or the Attorney General and such 
     approval may not be delegated.
       Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Justice in this Act, including those derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 108. In fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, the Director 
     of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to make expenditures 
     out of the Federal Prison System's Commissary Fund, Federal 
     Prisons, for the installation, operation, and maintenance of 
     the inmate telephone system, including, without limitation, 
     the payment of all the equipment purchased or leased in 
     connection with the inmate telephone system and the salaries, 
     benefits, and other expenses of personnel who install, 
     operate and maintain the inmate telephone system, regardless 
     of whether these expenditures are security related.
       Sec. 109. Section 524(c)(9)(B) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``1999''.
       Sec. 110. (a) Section 3201 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 
     (28 U.S.C. 509 note) is amended to read as follows--
       ``Appropriations in this or any other Act hereafter for the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, or the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     are available, in an amount of not to exceed $25,000 each per 
     fiscal year, to pay humanitarian expenses incurred by or for 
     any employee thereof (or any member of the employee's 
     immediate family) that results from or is incident to serious 
     illness, serious injury, or death occurring to the employee 
     while on official duty or business.''
       (b) The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 is amended by striking section 626 
     (8 U.S.C. 1363b).
       Sec. 111. Any amounts credited to the ``Legalization 
     Account'' established under section 245(c)(7)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a(c)(7)(B)) are 
     transferred to the ``Examinations Fee Account'' established 
     under section 286(m) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)).


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Metcalf

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

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Metcalf:
       Page 38, after line 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 112. Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note) is 
     repealed.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) on the legislation before us. He 
has, as

[[Page H7147]]

always, found a way to adequately address the many competing priorities 
in this legislation, and I thank him for his effort.
  Very simply, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would repeal section 110 of 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 
1996. Mr. Chairman, section 110 is a bad provision. This section, if 
this section was implemented it would devastate our northern border 
communities, not only in my community but in many of the northern 
border communities.
  In order to address this delay I secured $15 million in border 
infrastructure improvements in Blaine. While this will represent a 
major step towards reducing congestion, its benefit will have little if 
any effect if section 110 is fully implemented.
  I notice that the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims is on the floor. I would like to request the 
gentleman's participation in a colloquy.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. METCALF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to engage in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I have been a 
strong opponent of section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 because of the potential harm 
that could be inflicted on my district and across the entire northern 
border.
  Is it the gentleman's position that section 110 should be delayed 
until the Immigration and Naturalization Service develops a system that 
will not significantly disrupt trade, tourism or other legitimate 
cross-border activity at the land border points of entry?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. This 
section should not be implemented if it would significantly disrupt 
legitimate border traffic. I will support going forward with this 
section only if it will not impede that cross-border travel and trade 
that I understand the gentleman from Washington has a legitimate 
concern about.
  At the same time I must emphasize that section 110 was included in 
the 1996 act because a comprehensive and efficient entry/exit is vital 
for our national security.

                              {time}  2100

  Without such a system, our government has no idea who is coming to 
the United States and whether they leave when they are supposed to do 
so. It is particularly important that the United States protect its 
citizens from terrorism, drug smuggling and illegal aliens.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is it the gentleman's 
understanding that the INS is not yet prepared to implement section 110 
at all ports this year?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, that is correct. It is my understanding that the INS will not 
be prepared to implement section 110 by the statutory deadline. Let me 
emphasize that section 110 should be implemented in a manner that will 
not have an adverse impact on trade, tourism or other legitimate 
traffic across our land borders.
  Mr. METCALF. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I look 
forward to working with him over the next year to find a solution to 
this section that will fulfill both of our priorities and ensure the 
economic success of our northern border communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.


          Amendment No. 29 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I 
intend to withdraw.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 38, after line 9, insert the following:


         PROHIBITION ON HANDGUN TRANSFER WITHOUT LOCKING DEVICE

       Sec. 112. (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(y)(1) It shall be unlawful, for any person to transfer a 
     handgun to another person unless a locking device is attached 
     to, or an integral part of, the handgun, or is sold or 
     delivered to the transferee as part of the transfer.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the transfer of a 
     handgun to the United States, or any department or agency of 
     the United states, or a State, or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State.''.
       (b) Locking Device Defined.--Section 921(a) of such title 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(34) The term `locking device' means a device which, 
     while attached to or part of a firearm, prevents the firearm 
     from being discharged, and which can be removed or 
     deactivated by means of a key or a mechanically, 
     electronically, or electro-mechanically operated combination 
     lock.''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the good 
works of my friends in the United States Senate and my colleague on the 
Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer), and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), and others who realize 
that there is much that we could come together on on an amendment 
dealing with a very simple technology, and that is a safety lock on a 
gun to protect our children.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been much debate on this floor about how best 
to and who has the high moral ground on impacting our children. The 
amendment that I would have proposed would save children's lives.
  Let me give you an example. So many years ago I was on the City 
Council and passed an ordinance dealing with gun safety and 
responsibility. That ordinance was to hold parents responsible for the 
accidental shootings by their children. It was not punitive to haul 
parents and adults into prison or to put them under a judge's order, 
but it was to save children's lives.
  Now, today, in Houston, and in the State of Texas, we have seen a 50 
percent decrease in the number of accidental shootings. In this country 
today, the firearm homicide rate among children across our country has 
tripled in the last 10 years. It is tragic and shocking that there were 
over 500 accidental deaths among children as a result of young and 
curious hands reaching for a gun as a toy and over 5,000 deaths related 
to youth and guns. In my home State of Texas, 32 children died as a 
result of accidentally fired guns last year, and that is down, and 500 
children died in my State as a result of firearms in children total. 
This is unacceptable, even in spite of the numbers we have seen go 
down.
  The high incidence of this lethal violence against youth demands a 
national response. The need for this type of legislation is even more 
critical because younger and younger children are accessing guns and 
becoming increasingly involved in violence and gang activity.
  I am withdrawing this amendment, Mr. Chairman, only because I want 
this very simple technology to pass. I want us to educate parents and 
teachers and constituents and this Nation that this is not gun control, 
this is gun responsibility.
  The recent rash of school shootings which occurred across several of 
our States are a manifestation of not only a disturbing trend of 
hostility among our young people, hostility and confusion, I might say, 
but also how accessible violent weapons are to our children. No matter 
how much we as adults protest and say we have had them locked up in a 
drawer, we did not know they had them, we did not know they went into 
our glove compartment, we did not know they went into our car, those 
weapons are still weapons of violence when they get in the hand of a 
child, either accidentally or intentionally.
  Just think of the impact of a simple trigger lock, a safety lock. We 
must not only look at what leads children to kill other children, we 
must also take the responsibility for placing the tools of death 
outside of their reach and providing that safety measure, that trigger 
lock. This trigger lock amendment will prevent children from shooting 
guns, either accidently or purposefully. It will help to save our young 
people's lives and protect our communities and our families from 
accidental gun violence.

[[Page H7148]]

  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I look forward to working with the 
many allies around this Nation, PTOs, school districts, local 
governments, Handgun, Inc., and my colleagues in the United States 
Congress, to finally recognize that after we educate the public, we 
educate those who are perceived opponents, my good friends in the 
National Rifle Association, who have always argued that they believe in 
prevention. Well, what is the best way to have prevention? That is the 
trigger lock.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer this amendment, 
because I am prepared for the long haul. I believe we are going to win 
this, and we are going to win it when we educate the American people 
that to save more of our children's lives, we need to implement the 
safety lock, the trigger lock, and bring an end to this ceaseless or 
unending devastation against our children.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this 
important amendment to H.R. 4276. I have proposed an amendment to H.R. 
4276 which I urge all my colleagues to support. My amendment will save 
children's lives! In this country today the firearm homicide rate among 
children across our country has tripled in the last 10 years. It is 
tragic and shocking that there were over 500 accidental deaths among 
children as a result of young and curious hands reaching for a gun as a 
toy. In my home State of Texas, 32 children died as a result of 
accidentally fired handguns last year, and 500 children died in my 
State as a result of firearm deaths in total. This is unacceptable.
  The high incidence of lethality of youth violence demands a major 
national response. The need for this type of legislation is even more 
critical because younger and younger children are accessing guns and 
becoming increasingly involved in violence and gang activity.
  The rash of recent school shootings which occurred across several of 
our states are a manifestation of not only a disturbing trend of 
hostility among our young people, but also how accessible violent 
weapons are to our children.
  We must not only look at what leads children to kill other children, 
we must also take responsibility for placing the tools of death within 
their reach.
  The trigger lock amendment will prevent children from shooting guns, 
either accidentally or purposefully. It will help to save our young 
people's lives and protect our communities and our families from 
accidental gun violence.
  Mr. Chairman, only at this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
this amendment in order to offer this amendment after we have fully 
educated the American people on this needed gun safety feature.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________