[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 113 (Wednesday, August 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6974-H6983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2670, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 273 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 273

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2670) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4 
     of rule XIII and section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. The amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution may be offered only by a Member designated in 
     the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading 
     of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to amendment. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. During consideration 
     of the bill, points of order against amendments for failure 
     to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 273 is an open rule providing for consideration of 
H.R. 2670, the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule provides for 1 hour 
of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives 
clause 3 of rule XIV which requires a 3-day layover of the committee 
report and the 3-day availability of printed hearings on a general 
appropriations bill. The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI which 
prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions in the appropriations 
bill. Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act which prohibits 
consideration of legislation within the Committee on the Budget's 
jurisdiction unless reported by the Committee on the Budget is also 
waived. The rule makes in order the amendments printed in Committee on 
Rules report which may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled between the proponent and an opponent and shall 
not be subject to an amendment.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in 
Committee on Rules report. In addition the rule waives all points of 
order against all amendments to the bill for failure to comply with 
clause 2(e) of rule XXI which prohibits non-emergency designated 
amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an 
emergency designation. This rule also accords priority and recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record. This simply encourages Members to take advantage of the option 
to facilitate consideration of amendments and to inform Members of the 
details pending amendments. The rule also provides that the chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment 
and that the chairman may reduce the voting time on a postponed 
question to 5 minutes provided that the vote immediately follows 
another recorded vote and that voting time on the first in a series of 
votes is not less than 15 minutes. This will provide a more definite 
voting schedule for all Members and hopefully will help guarantee the 
time of the completion of appropriations bills.
  House Resolution 273 also provides for one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions as is the right of the minority Members of the 
House. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 273 is a typical open rule to be considered 
for the general appropriations bills. This rule does not restrict the 
normal open amending process in any way, and any amendments that comply 
with the standing rules of the House may be offered for consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, H. Res. 273 specifically makes 
in order three amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report. I 
am pleased that this open rule also grants necessary waivers to permit 
consideration of the following amendments on the House floor.
  Amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Bass) directs the FCC to enact measures that relieve the area code and 
phone number shortage problem and gives the FCC until March 31, 2000, 
to develop and implement a plan to address this problem. Amendment No. 
2 offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman 
from

[[Page H6975]]

Indiana (Mr. Souder) prohibits the expenditure of funds for education 
materials and counseling programs if promoted by the Justice 
Department's Office of Juvenile Justice of Delinquency Prevention which 
undermine or denigrate the religious beliefs of minor children or 
adults participating in such programs.
  And finally, Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Deal) will prevent any funds appropriated under the bill from 
being used to process or provide visas to those countries that refuse 
to repatriate their citizens or nationalists.
  The Committee on Appropriations has for the fourth straight year had 
to balance a wide array of interests and make tough choices of scarce 
resources. I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the work on this legislation. 
In particular, I want to briefly comment on the crime immigration and 
anti-drug provisions included in the underlying text of H.R. 2670.
  First, I am pleased that the bill provides 2.82 billion for State and 
local law enforcement assistance so that local officials can 
successfully continue their efforts to fight crimes against our 
citizens. This provision is 1.2 billion more than requested by the 
administration including 523 million for the local law enforcement 
block grant program, 552 million for Edward Byrne Memorial State and 
Local law Enforcement Assistance Grant program and 686 million for the 
Truth in Sentencing State Prison Grant program and 283 million for 
Violence Against Women programs.
  I am also pleased that the committee has provided 3 billion in direct 
funding, a $484 million increase to enforce our immigration laws. The 
committee recommendation includes an increase of 100 million to enforce 
border control including 1,000 new border control agents, 140 support 
personnel and increased detention of criminal and illegal aliens.
  Finally I want to point out the good work by the committee in 
providing 1.3 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration to 
continue the fight against drugs in our neighborhoods. This $73 million 
increase over the last year indicates our commitment to win the war on 
drugs, and I commend the committee for this increase in funding 
enhancements to bolster the Caribbean enforcement strategy and drug 
intelligence capabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2670 was favorably reported out of the Committee on 
Appropriations, as was this open rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge 
my colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed with the general 
debate and consideration of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for 
yielding me this time.
  This rule will allow for consideration of H.R. 2670. This is the bill 
that makes appropriation in fiscal year 2000 for Commerce, Justice and 
State Departments, Federal Judiciary and related agencies. As my 
colleague from Georgia explained, this rule provides for 1 hour of 
general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Under the 
rule germane amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule, which 
is the normal amending process in the House.
  The underlying bill is an inadequate piece of legislation which will 
probably be vetoed by the President. This rule provides an insufficient 
opportunity to improve the bill. Therefore, I will oppose the rule, and 
I also intend to oppose the previous question.
  The bill makes deep cuts in the President's request for numerous 
Federal law enforcement agencies, and this is not frivolous spending. 
These programs help preserve law, reduce violence, make our streets and 
homes safe from crime. The bill cuts funding for international 
organizations by 14 percent below last year's level of funding. It 
reduces funding for the Legal Services Corporation to less than half of 
its current level, and of course that is the organization that provides 
legal help to the poor. The bill cuts the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration by 10 percent below last year's level. 
Included in this cut is critical weather research that can help save 
lives and protect property. The bill cuts $1 billion from the COPS 
program intended to put 100,000 new police officers on the street. The 
list goes on and on and on.
  I am pleased that the bill does provide $244 million as a down 
payment on the back dues the United States owes the United Nations. But 
once again this bill holds that money hostage to the authorization 
bill, and as we all know, that bill does not stand much chance of 
passage.
  During Committee on Rules consideration yesterday, I offered a motion 
to make a free and clear appropriation to pay our U.N. dues back, or 
back dues. This amendment was defeated on a straight party-line vote. 
Later today I will offer the amendment on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that we have not paid our back dues to 
the United Nations; it is an absolute disgrace. This is not optional 
spending. We made a promise; we owe them money. The faith and the 
credit of the United States is on the line. Do not take my word. Here 
is what seven former U.S. Secretaries of State have said. In a letter 
earlier this year to the House and Senate leaders, former State 
Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, James Baker, Warren 
Christopher, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz, and Lawrence Eagleburger said 
our great Nation is squandering its moral authority, leadership and 
influence in the world. It is simply unacceptable that the richest 
Nation on Earth is also the biggest debtor to the United Nations.
  Yesterday the Committee on Rules considered granting waivers to make 
in order 11 amendments that were submitted to the committee. Six were 
Democratic amendments, and five were Republicans. One of the amendments 
was offered by the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano).
  Another was offered by the ranking minority member of the full 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). 
Three Republican amendments were made in order, but not one Democratic 
amendment was made in order, not one, not even the amendment by the 
ranking minority member of the committee or subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a bipartisan cooperation. Therefore, I must 
oppose the rule and ask my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding 
this time to me and congratulate him on this handling of this rule.
  I rise to begin by complimenting my very good friend and classmate, 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for the work that he has done 
on this bill. It has been, as we all know, a very difficult measure 
dealing with the constraints that have been imposed by the 1997 Budget 
Act, and I believe that he has done a superb job, and I am happy to 
report, as Mr. Rogers well knows, that we in the Committee on Rules 
have done exactly what he requested of him; we provided an open rule 
plus. We, in fact under this open amendment process, will have every 
germane amendment allowable to be debated and considered, and we added 
three additional legislative amendments which address some concerns 
that a number of Members had raised to it.
  So I believe that this is a very, very fair and appropriate way in 
which to deal with this important issue.
  I also want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
of the minority who came forward and made the exact same request of us 
that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) did in his testimony 
before the Committee on Rules.
  Let me talk about the bill itself and a couple of provisions that I 
think are very important.
  Last week we had a very rigorous debate here in the House on the 
issue of whether or not to maintain normal

[[Page H6976]]

 trading relations with the People's Republic of China, and during that 
debate I was happy to briefly raise an issue which is very important in 
our quest for political pluralism and democratization of the People's 
Republic of China, and that is the support of the village election 
process.
  Now more than 2 decades ago, Mao Tze Tong was a supporter of the idea 
of village elections, and yet at that time there were only 9 Communist 
candidates in the People's Republic of China who were running. Today 
through the efforts of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is 
funded in this bill and the work of the International Republican 
Institute, one of the core groups associated with the NED, the National 
Endowment for Democracy, and I am privileged to serve on their board, 
we have been very, very key to promoting those village elections in the 
People's Republic of China.

                              {time}  1130

  I am happy to say that today, over 500 million people in China have 
been able to participate in local village elections. That is why I 
think that while it is a relatively small amount in the big picture, 
the support for the National Endowment for Democracy is very important, 
because we have the private sector involved with this and, as I said, 
several other core groups. So I congratulate my friend from Kentucky 
for putting that in the bill and maintaining strong bipartisan support 
for it.
  I also want to mention one other issue that is of very great 
importance, and I see my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Condit) to us, and it is dealing with what is known as SCAAP funding. 
We have in California a problem with the tremendous cost burden imposed 
on California's taxpayers for the incarceration of illegal immigrant 
felons, people who are in this country illegally and commit crimes.
  In fact, one of every five prisoners in state prisons in California 
happens to be someone who is in this country illegally. So we all 
recognize that it is not the responsibility of a single state to 
protect the international borders, it is the responsibility of the 
Federal Government to do that.
  That is one of the reasons we have said when we have problems 
protecting the boarders, the responsibility for the consequences of 
that should not be shouldered by the State taxpayers of one particular 
State. That is why this SCAAP funding provision is very important, and, 
again, it enjoys bipartisan support, and I am very pleased it is 
included in this bill.
  So, once again, this is an open rule-plus that we have. All germane 
amendments will be made in order for consideration. I hope my 
colleagues on both the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle will 
join in enthusiastic support of it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this rule is one of the most important items 
to come before the House in this Congress. It would permit the 
wholesale breach of the budget caps under the pretense that the 
decennial census is an emergency and, as it is currently crafted, it 
would even deny the House a vote on whether that designation is 
appropriate.
  What is at stake here is more important than this bill or the $4.5 
billion it spends off budget. What is at stake is the total abandonment 
of any pretense of orderly decision making on the budget.
  If the decennial census can be classified as an ``unforeseen 
emergency,'' then any item in the appropriation bills is fair game. At 
that point, we have returned to the era of totally ad hoc budgeting, we 
have thrown away the budget resolution that was adopted this spring, 
and we are striking out with no end game and no plan for how much we 
will spend or what we will spend it on.
  We will continue to make daily adjustments based on the Republican 
whip meetings and complaints delivered to the Speaker's office. That is 
not a process that is acceptable to the American people, whether they 
hope to sustain existing services or whether they wish for deep tax 
cuts. It is a prescription for chaos.
  Equally important, this would devastate Congress' credibility in 
using the discretion provided in the Budget Act to deal with real 
emergencies. If we permit this wholesale abuse of emergency spending 
powers in the Budget Act, we will end up having those powers challenged 
and we will find that Congress is unable to meet its fundamental 
responsibility in confronting future emergencies.
  Whether we face a question of war or peace or whether we face a great 
domestic disaster, our ability to act without rewriting the funding 
levels agreed to over the arduous course of the previous appropriations 
cycle will likely depend on how responsibly we act at this moment.
  I urge the House to defeat this rule and adopt a rule that will 
permit the House to at least vote on the emergency designation.
  I would urge Members to take note of the letter from Taxpayers for 
Common Sense, which indicates that this is an extremely shaky way in 
which to proceed if we are interested in responsible budgeting.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I agree with him that the wholesale use of the 
emergency designation would not be too smart, but then this is not the 
smartest place in the world. The emergency designation in our budget 
process was created in 1990. That was a long time before the 
Republicans became the majority party in the Congress.
  Since 1990, when the Democrats created this emergency provision, it 
has been used many times, not necessarily by the Republican majority 
that exists today. I would be happy to provide for the record and for 
Members who would like to see it, a very long list of times and events 
when the emergency designation was actually used.
  Now, let me say something about the census, which is the issue before 
us today that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) mentioned. The 
problem here is we are dealing with the 1997 balanced budget agreement. 
I am not sure who the players were at that time, but when that decision 
was made, when those conferences were held, when the give and take was 
over, there was no money in the 1997 balanced budget agreement for the 
census, although everybody knows that the Constitution says there shall 
be a census every 10 years.
  Of course, the Supreme Court did rule just recently in a ruling that 
requires that we do an actual census count in the year 2000 plus the 
sampling that the Administration wants to do. But, anyway, the 1997 
balanced budget agreement did not provide the funding to take care of 
the census for the year 2000.
  Now, when the House did the budget resolution for fiscal year 2000 
this year, again there was no provision made for the census. So here we 
are trying to keep the budget balanced, trying to stay at or below last 
year's level of spending on all of these bills, except for national 
defense, trying to protect all of the receipts to the Social Security 
Trust Fund for Social Security recipients. We are doing all of those 
things, but we still have to do the census. So that is the reason that 
the committee decided and determined that we would use the emergency 
designation, similar to the way that this administration has used it 
without a lot of regard for what the balanced budget situation was and 
the way this Congress has used it many, many times.
  I would hope that we would order the previous question, adopt the 
rule, and get on to the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first explain what I will be doing here today. I 
will be voting for this bill, because I believe

[[Page H6977]]

it is the proper position for me to take to move this process along in 
the hope we can get a better bill and because it fully funds the 
census, which is important not only for my district, but for every 
district throughout this country.
  However, I rise today in opposition to the rule. At first glance this 
is a fine rule. It is an open rule providing for procedures that would 
help the House consider the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
bill in a fine manner.
  If the Committee on Rules had simply granted the Committee on 
Appropriations' requested rule, this debate would be over with a voice 
vote. However, Mr. Speaker, Committee on Rules Republicans once again 
chose to stiff the Democrats on amendments. They made in order and 
protected from points of order three Republican amendments by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal). But of at least 
seven Democratic amendments requested at the Committee on Rules 
hearing, not one was made in order.
  I asked the committee to make in order an amendment based on my bill, 
H.R. 1644, the Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999, which 
would permit sales of U.S. food and agricultural products, including 
seeds and medicine and medical equipment to Cuba, without the 
cumbersome licensing procedures now in effect.
  I argued that the time has come for the United States, on moral 
grounds, to relieve the suffering of the Cuban people and that American 
business, agriculture in particular, could benefit greatly from 
entering the Cuban market. USDA lists more than 25 agricultural 
products that Cuba imports, and farm advocates say that the U.S. could 
reasonably expect to provide 70 percent of Cuba's agriculture imports, 
earning in excess of $1 billion a year, and $3 billion by the second 
year.
  The committee did not see fit to make my amendment in order.
  Now, my amendment might be controversial in some quarters. Indeed, 
one Member of the Committee on Rules was heard to say ``baloney,'' 
which is not on the chart, as I was discussing it. But the committee 
did not even protect the bipartisan amendment to name the main Justice 
Building after former Senator and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. 
The amendment based on legislation introduced by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough), was requested by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), and the very 
eloquent gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). Even Mr. Lewis' eloquence 
did not move the Committee on Rules to let the House consider the 
amendment.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, the needless partisanship of the Republicans 
on the Committee on Rules has turned a good rule as requested by my 
chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), into a slap in my 
caucus's face, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee 
whose bill we are about to take up.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. This rule is like practically all 
the other rules that have been brought before this body on an 
appropriations bill. This is an open rule. Offer any amendment you 
want. There are no limitations. The Committee on Rules says take it to 
the floor and let anybody on the floor say whatever they want, offer 
any amendment they want. So there you are.
  Now, what you want over here, you want to offer legislation on an 
appropriations bill. There are legislative committees all over this 
Congress, all over Capitol Hill, meeting just this moment considering 
legislation, authorizing programs, deauthorizing programs and the like.
  We do not do that on the Committee on Appropriations. Members know 
that. We appropriate funds. If you want to get your legislation passed, 
go to the appropriate committee and get it passed. I will probably vote 
for it. But not on an appropriations bill. That is not what we do.
  This is a fair rule, and I urge its immediate adoption. This bill is 
a major bill that is restrained beyond any bill that I have brought to 
the floor in my experience. We actually cut spending from current 
levels by $833 million, and we do maintain the critical agencies at 
their current levels. We do not cut the FBI, the DEA, the Weather 
Service. We increase the Border Patrol. But practically everything else 
is frozen. It is a responsible bill written under very tough spending 
caps that you imposed on us 3 years ago. You voted for the caps. I am 
here to tell you now that you have had your good time, the piper is at 
the door waiting to be paid, and that is this bill. It is restrained, 
and we had to restrain ourselves because of the caps.
  But if you want to legislate on my bill, I am going to oppose you. Go 
to the appropriate committee. Make your fight. Make your case. Bring it 
to the floor in the right way and we will probably pass it, but not on 
this bill.
  So I urge Members to support this fair rule. There is nothing the 
Committee on Rules could have done under the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Dreier) better than this rule I think, because it is open. It 
is like all the other rules. It precludes legislation, because that is 
what this Congress is all about.
  So I urge, Mr. Speaker, a strong vote for the rule, so that we can 
get to the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  (Ms. STABENOW asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations rule and the bill. While there are many 
reasons to do so, I am especially disappointed in the committee's 
decision to eliminate totally the funding for the Advanced Technology 
Program known as ATP. This means that not only is there no money for 
new research awards, but the research currently being supported will be 
terminated. In other words, current research contracts, current 
commitments, will not be kept. And who gets hurt by this cut? The 
hundreds of small businesses involved with ATP projects. Fifty-five 
percent of all ATP projects are led by small businesses, and they 
participate in 70 percent of all of the ATP projects.
  In fact, small businesses receive about half of all ATP funding, and 
because Federal funds are limited to know more than 50 percent of the 
research project's cost, small businesses will be on the hook for the 
investment dollars. They have committed to the research.
  Also hurt are more than 100 universities that take part in this 
important project, including several in Michigan that are very involved 
in pre-competitive research and technology efforts. This bill will 
terminate 240 research projects in 30 States representing a private 
sector investment of $931.5 million in private research dollars to 
create jobs.
  This is matched by $926.4 million in Federal funds. In other words, 
this shortsighted bill wastes almost $2 billion in public-private 
investment that will lead to real jobs for Americans. This bill is 
shortsighted at best.
  We know if we want to keep our strong economy going, we must continue 
to create cutting-edge technologies for the future. In Michigan we are 
doing that, and I would rise today to ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule 
and on the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I have the 
utmost respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, but when he 
mentioned that Democratic amendments were seeking to impose legislation 
on the appropriations bill, the bottom line is that the rule makes in 
order 3 Republican amendments with special waivers that really are 
legislative, and also the bill itself has all kinds of legislative 
language. So I think that saying that the Democratic amendments were 
not made in order because they were legislative is really not accurate.
  The bottom line is that the Republican leadership makes in order 
whatever amendments they please, as long as they are Republican, but 
they denied each of the Democratic amendments that were requested.

[[Page H6978]]

  One of those amendments was mine, and it was an amendment that really 
was very bipartisan. It was important to ensure that Holocaust victims 
who were U.S. citizens at the time they were persecuted are justly 
compensated for their sufferings at the hands of Nazi Germany.
  I just have to say, if I can, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to thank, 
first of all, the committee and particularly the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) for her help on this. This was a recorded vote, 
and essentially what the Republicans did in voting against this 
amendment was to put themselves on record opposing the opportunity, if 
you will, the opportunity to provide compensation for Holocaust 
victims.
  Over the years, many people are not aware, but over the years if you 
were a U.S. citizen and you happened to find yourself in Nazi Germany 
at the time of the Holocaust, the German government would refuse to 
give you any compensation or any reparations.
  I found my own constituent, Hugo Prince, a few years ago in this 
situation, and I worked on a bipartisan basis with Senators, Republican 
Senators and Republicans in this House to put in place a plan whereby a 
compensation could be provided to these U.S. citizens that happened to 
be in Nazi Germany, suffered in the concentration camps and were not 
able to get compensation.
  What we found in putting this provision in place was that over the 
years the money ran out, the German government was providing the money, 
not the taxpayers, this was money coming from the German government, 
and the money ran out and there were a number of claimants who did not 
have an opportunity, if you will, because of the law, to raise their 
claims.
  All we are trying to do with this amendment is to make that 
opportunity there again. The amendment simply says that if you fail to 
meet the notification period, that you can now put your claim forward 
in a timely fashion, and if the State Department finds that your claim 
is legitimate, they will then negotiate with the German government to 
find more money to compensate these victims of the Holocaust.

                              {time}  1145

  Again, I have no idea what is going on here today and why it is that 
the Republicans would refuse to allow this amendment. It has been 
bipartisan; it is clearly something that should be done, and there is a 
need for it right now. This time has expired. This is not something 
that we can wait a year or 2 years for. A lot of these people are 
older, and they are dying off. So there is an immediate need for it; it 
is almost an emergency. I would characterize it as an emergency more in 
the sense than some of the ``emergencies'' that I have heard on the 
other side.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, listening to these excuses this morning 
from our Republican colleagues, I cannot help but think how far this 
great Republican revolution has sagged. My colleagues claimed they 
wanted to change everything, and yet they justify this morning's 
adventure in fiscal responsibility on the grounds that we ought to keep 
doing things the same old way it has been done in the past.
  Last year, this Congress managed to pack in billions of dollars of 
pork into a weighty bill, weighing in at 40 pounds to be exact, 
something called the Omnibus Spending bill. Some of us called it the 
``Octopus Spending'' bill, because of the strange reach of its long 
tentacles. Labeling projects as ``emergencies'' that did not have any 
genuine emergency associated with them at all was done for the sole 
purpose of avoiding the limitations of the Balanced Budget Act. Again 
this spring, billions of dollars of projects that did not have anything 
to do with Kosovo were given that very valued appellation ``emergency'' 
as a way of increasing defense spending while pretending to comply with 
the Balanced Budget Act. Apparently, getting away with such charades 
only whetted the appetites of those who come to this floor and preach 
fiscal restraint and then proceed to engage in this kind of 
gamesmanship.
  In this bill, they designate almost $5 billion for the 2000 Census. 
That is the same ``emergency'' that our Founding Fathers required us to 
do every decade in the United States Constitution. It is the same 
``emergency'' that we have had every 10 years since the year 1790. This 
is not an emergency, it is just another example of Republicans cooking 
the books.
  Republicans say they want to get all of this money out of Washington 
with an irresponsible tax cut. Apparently, they just want protection 
from themselves. They really cry out, keep us from taking more money 
from Social Security for purposes that have nothing to do with Social 
Security at all. That is what they are doing this morning to pay for 
their phony ``emergency.''
  Webster's dictionary defines an ``emergency'' as ``an unforeseen 
combination of circumstances.'' Certainly, the census is not that, but 
the second definition is applicable. It is ``an urgent need for 
assistance or relief.'' That is what America needs relief from this 
kind of Republican fiscal irresponsibility. It is urgent. It is an 
emergency in that context.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
bringing this rule to the floor, and I obviously support the underlying 
initiative, the bill on Commerce, Justice, and State.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the additional $20 million being allocated to 
the Department of Justice for border patrols, but I must tell my 
colleagues that I am frustrated and outraged by the pitiful amount of 
funding for Florida. People are literally dying on our shores. They are 
victims of illegal smuggling operations that take advantage of 
desperate, innocent people, trying to leave the rapidly deteriorating 
conditions in Haiti and Cuba and other impoverished or politically 
oppressive countries.
  These countries treat human beings like cargo. This past March, 40 
people died off of south Florida shores while the boat they were being 
smuggled in sank, 40 people died. A similar tragedy in mid-December 
when as many as 13 people died in another illegal smuggling attempt. 
Mr. Speaker, 300,000 illegal immigrants enter the United States each 
year. In the short period between January 1 and March 10, there were 45 
illegal landings, 31 interdictions, and 34 identified smuggling 
activities, resulting in over 400 illegal alien entrants by sea. These 
entrants by sea are all coming to Florida. Florida is shortchanged 
while all of the funding goes to other States.
  Florida is the weak link and the focal point of current smuggling 
operations. While the number of immigration criminal agents has more 
than doubled during the past 5 years to over 8,000, Florida has not 
seen an increase of agents in 10 years. In Florida, 52 Border Patrol 
agents are trying to stop an estimated 12,000 illegals who come into 
Florida by sea each year. Because of their few numbers, the Border 
Patrol and Coast Guard together are only capable of catching a mere 10 
percent of them.
  The mechanisms designed to nab the illegal aliens that slip in is 
also failing. The INS has now decided to change their enforcement 
tactics and has suspended most surprised workplace inspections that 
would identify illegal workers and the employers who hire them. The 
switch sends a clear message to illegal aliens and to smugglers that 
they are okay unless they get caught committing a crime. Enforcement 
standards are going down just when illegal immigration is on the rise.
  Florida Governor Jeb Bush wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno 
following our most recent tragedy requesting additional efforts. We 
need, and I would ask this House to consider in the future, and I 
specifically ask the administration to listen: greater interdiction 
efforts along the U.S. coast; increased Federal resources to make the 
prevention of illegal smuggling a top priority with an increased focus 
on south Florida; expanded hold capacity for the Krome detention 
facility located in Miami, County so that officials will be able to 
retain larger numbers of illegal aliens after the raids. Even one of my 
own counties, Glades County, Florida has offered to construct the 
facility for

[[Page H6979]]

INS, to lease on a per diem basis, bed space to make available for the 
excess illegals that are coming and being arrested. This request goes 
unanswered by members of the administration.
  Again, let us think about the human tragedy here. People are 
smuggling innocent people to this country and oftentimes throwing them 
overboard miles offshore so they will not get caught, yet they have 
taken the money from the person hoping to come to America.
  Mr. Speaker, we must support increased funding for Border Patrol. I 
recognize that, and that is why the base bill I support. But I want 
everybody to listen here today, because I believe Florida has been 
shortchanged. I have repeatedly asked the administration, I have 
repeatedly asked my colleagues in the House, and I would hope that the 
rest of the Florida delegation will support us in our effort for 
several things: Coast Guard, Border Patrol, INS and Customs.
  Florida is a growing State with growing tourism, growing needs, and 
we would certainly hope that this Congress would be receptive to 
assisting us in meeting those needs and demands, and let not one more 
person perish on Florida seas or on Florida's coast without this being 
addressed.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me 
this time.
  If one is in a school and one is seen carrying around a host of books 
and one uses those books, and one's arguments are reflective of the 
study of those books, one is probably seen as an academician and 
scholarly. But if one is an accountant and one has two books, one is 
kind of known as cooking the books, keeping two sets of accounting on 
one's budget. And that is not known as a particularly good practice.
  Now, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule because this bill 
includes $4.5 billion of money that is in the second book. It is not 
accounted for. It is declared emergency funding that breaks the budget 
caps, that is not accounted for in the way that we should be accounting 
for the money as fiscally responsible Democrats and fiscally 
responsible Republicans.

                              {time}  1200

  Now, many Republicans came here in 1994 under the Republican 
revolution to revolutionize the way we did the budget around here, not 
to cook the books and keep two sets of books for a routine measure of 
spending. We are talking about $4.5 billion. That is as much as many 
States have for their entire yearly budget. Yet, it is okay in this 
practice to declare this emergency spending.
  Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, knew about it. We knew 
in 1991, in 1992, 1993, we were going to have to spend this money. Our 
American families know before they go on a vacation that they have to 
sit down and plan out what they are going to do with that budget, and 
plan backwards; if it is going to take them $1,500 for their vacation, 
that they may not have the opportunity to do other things. But in this 
budget, we go forward and spend $4.5 billion on census funding that we 
have known for years was coming that is routine spending, and we 
declare it emergency spending.
  My second argument, other than fiscal responsibility for encouraging 
defeating the rule, is a fairness argument.
  In addition to the fiscal responsibility argument, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), and myself, a Democrat from 
Indiana, went before the Committee on Rules to ask for a rule to simply 
give us the waiver, the same waiver they have given three Republican 
amendments, no Democratic amendment; to simply rename the Justice 
Department building after Robert Kennedy.
  This is, of course, the Commerce-State-Justice bill. It is not major 
legislation. It is not redoing U.N. funding. It is not major 
legislation on a new policy. Three Republican amendments were in order, 
no Democratic amendments in order.
  So for fiscal responsibility and $4.5 billion being cooked in two 
sets of books on this bill, and for a rule that reflects a six-vote 
difference in the majority and minority for fairness for rules, I urge 
my colleagues to defeat this rule and send it back. Let us get a fair 
rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a moment, because as 
many in the House know, I have been, along with a number of my 
colleagues, fighting a battle against corporate welfare. Corporate 
welfare is defined as those governmental programs that cost the 
taxpayers more than the benefits they derive from the subsidies.
  The fact is that we have a breakthrough today in corporate welfare, 
and we need to celebrate the victories that we have. The chairman of 
the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) should receive 
large praise for his elimination of the advanced technology program. 
That is a program where government uses taxpayers' dollars to pick 
winners and losers without any relationship at all to the marketplace.
  It is not the job in a free market system for the government to 
engage in the picking of winners and losers, particularly when the 
picking of winners and losers results in a bigger cost to the taxpayer 
than the benefit it brings to society.
  No one should be confused about what this term ``corporate welfare'' 
is all about. Many of my friends on the other side do not like the 
notion of tax cuts. Frankly, lowering the corporate tax burden works to 
the benefit of job creation. The creation and extension of making 
permanent the research and development tax credit is a system that will 
allow businesses to have the incentives to do the research that they 
should do for themselves that exists in the real world.
  Legal reform, a system that would set businesses free from the 
entanglements of lawsuits that in many cases make no rhyme nor reason 
to the kind of justice system that we all hope for, or simple 
regulatory reform that my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) who just spoke has supported, the efforts to try to make more 
common sense as it applies to business.
  Those are the answers in terms of the way in which our businesses 
should be expanded, not through a government program that costs 
taxpayers more and provides very little benefit to the taxpayers who 
pay the bill.
  The picking of winners and losers by government should end, and 
frankly, I think this is a very good day when it comes to the effort to 
try to reduce the level of corporate welfare that we find in the budget 
of the United States.
  I want to praise the chairman for his good work, and hope we can hold 
this all the way through conference.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and have many serious concerns about 
the bill itself. For one thing, as it stands, the bill will hurt, not 
help, our efforts to make our communities safer and to afford equal 
justice to all of our citizens.
  Let me give a few examples. Terminating the COPS program will be bad 
for communities like those that I represent, where residents are 
struggling to cope with the increased crime that too often comes with 
population growth.
  Secondly, cutting funding for the Legal Services Corporation calls 
into question our commitment to assuring that lower-income citizens can 
have access to our courts.
  Finally, number three, failing to adequately fund the enforcement of 
our civil rights laws will make it harder to protect the rights of all 
of our American citizens.
  The bill is also very bad for small business. In fact, it would cut 
back the Small Business Administration by forcing the SBA to lay off 
over 75 percent of its work force. It provides no funding for the new 
markets initiative, which will promote business investment in 
underserved areas like our urban centers and our Indian reservations.

[[Page H6980]]

  Just as troubling is the way the bill would affect the Commerce 
Department's National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, two agencies that 
have important research facilities in Colorado.
  The bill does provide for funds for some important NOAA projects, 
including the hyperaircraft. However, cuts in other NOAA funding are 
still troublesome, particularly as they affect the oceanic and 
atmospheric research programs.
  These programs support vital research, both in NOAA's own labs and 
through cooperation with universities like the University of Colorado. 
The bill's cuts in their funding are counterproductive to our efforts 
to understand and respond to climate change and global warming, and 
would set back needed progress in the ability of the Weather Service to 
predict severe events that threaten lives and property, like the 
destructive tornadoes in the State of Oklahoma this spring.
  As for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, I asked 
that agency how the bill would affect them. To sum it up, the effects 
would be terrible. The bill would delay construction of the Advanced 
Measurement Laboratory, which is essential to allow NIST to conduct 
research that is sorely needed by American science and American 
industry, and would require NIST to continue to cope with deteriorating 
physical facilities that are a serious impediment to its ability to 
carry out its mission.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a more detailed explanation of 
how the bill would affect NIST, which was provided to me at my request. 
I do not want to read it all, but I will sum it up. In short, the bill 
threatens to make it impossible for NIST to properly carry out its job 
of promoting technological progress and helping American industry to 
compete effectively.
  These are just a few of the serious problems with the bill, Mr. 
Speaker, so I cannot support the bill. We can do better. We must do 
better.
  The material referred to is as follows:

 Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology

       House Appropriations Bill impacts on NIST's Construction of 
     Research Facilities:
       The House Committee allowance bill freezes funding at the 
     FY 1999 level and delays construction of the Advanced 
     Measurement Laboratory (AML). The AML is the major step in a 
     long-term plan to remedy the technical obsolescence of the 
     NIST facilities.
       NIST's mission requires it to perform world-class research, 
     which requires world-class laboratories. NIST's outdated and 
     deteriorating laboratory facilities are undermining its 
     ability to promote U.S. economic growth and international 
     competitiveness.
       Delay will move the estimated completion of the AML to 2005 
     and could add as much as $6M to the cost. A delay in 
     construction also means a delay in the planned renovations of 
     our current facilities, which are in a state of continuous 
     deterioration.
       Below are just a few examples of how NIST's deteriorating 
     physical facilities are hampering its mission.
       The semiconductor and chemical processing industries need 
     subnanometer level reference materials for measuring silicon 
     wafer contamination and for studying catalytic surface 
     reactions. NIST has the instrumentation available to make 
     these measurements but cannot develop them due to poor 
     temperature, vibration, and air quality control in its 
     laboratories.
       Nuclear facilities, pharmaceutical companies, aerospace 
     industries, and others are pressing NIST to improve the 
     accuracy of its mass calibrations. The lack of good 
     environmental controls in NIST's current General Purpose 
     Laboratories causes NIST's precision mass calibrations to be 
     four to 10 times less accurate than they should be.
       The aerospace, semiconductor, pharmaceutical, and other 
     high tech industries need high quality pressure calibrations 
     from NIST. Many of these measurements are delayed in delivery 
     due to poor temperature and vibration control that prevent 
     NIST's best calibration instrument from being used about one 
     third of the time.
       NIST's research on ferroelectric oxide thin films important 
     in lightwave communications networks and next generation 
     optical computing is frequently set back by dust particles 
     that ruin delicate samples and is limited by temperature and 
     vibration control problems.
       As these examples illustrate, many NIST researchers in 
     advanced technology areas currently must throw out or delay 
     10 to 30 percent of their measurements due to unacceptably 
     large variations environmental conditions.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to several comments from 
the other side. Let us begin with my good friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), an Arizona native whose subsequent life's journey 
took him to another State. We welcome him in this body.
  He mentioned his concern about the elimination of the new markets 
initiative as a reason why he would oppose the rule, and I surmise, the 
general bill. I think it is important to actually take a look at what 
the President proposed in his so-called new markets initiative.
  Like many programs that come from the administration, it was heavy on 
overhead. Indeed, the new markets initiative, posturing as a program to 
help Indian reservations and those who live in the inner city who are 
economically disadvantaged, only worked to the advantage of government 
bureaucrats.
  Indeed, what the President asked to happen was to have the taxpayers 
underwrite some $100 million in loans, or actually provide some $45 
million in cash for a modest loan program, when instead, in our tax 
bill that passed on this floor in the proper jurisdiction, the 
Committee on Ways and Means, we incorporated a bipartisan plan that did 
more through tax relief for the inner cities and distressed areas than 
the new markets initiative could ever hope to do.
  To my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) who talked 
about keeping two sets of books, I would simply commend the rest of the 
story. Part of it goes back to the wise words of our good friend, the 
committee chairman, who will offer his appropriations legislation.
  We need to understand this, Mr. Speaker, that sadly, when it comes to 
the analogy of two sets of books, we would do well to look at the 
policy of the director of the Census, who, in apparent irreverence for 
existing law and the Constitution, this administration and this Census 
Bureau says that actual enumeration is not good enough when it comes to 
the Census, that we need to project.
  We should oppose the rule. Not two sets of books, one set of facts. 
Support the rule and support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear, I have only the 
highest respect for my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the committee. I rise against 
this rule but not against my colleague and the untenable situation that 
he and the chairman of the full committee have been put in.
  I rise in opposition to the rule because it is not a fair rule. If 
they had allowed three Democratic votes to have waivers of the rules, 
then it would be a fair rule and open, and I would be supporting the 
rule. But someone chose not to do that.
  The primary reason that I rise against the rule and against the bill 
is this continued charade that my friends on this side of the aisle are 
using regarding the caps. Everyone knows this bill, by declaring $4.5 
billion as an emergency for the Census, breaks the caps. Everyone in 
this body knows that. If someone here does not know that, please stand 
up and challenge me at this time. Everyone knows we are breaking the 
caps.
  We are spending social security trust funds for purposes of declaring 
an emergency on a Census that everyone has known for 220-plus years we 
do every 10 years.
  The gentleman from Arizona was making a point a moment ago, and I 
could get into that, too, because I happen to believe that we do better 
in this country when we allow sound science to determine our policies. 
We could have saved $1.7 billion, $1.7 billion, had we chosen to use 
sound science instead of political rhetoric.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, does my friend, the gentleman from Texas, 
actually favor sampling over actual enumeration and counting?

[[Page H6981]]

  Mr. STENHOLM. I absolutely do. I take back my time. I absolutely do, 
because based on sound science, as I argue in the Committee on 
Agriculture every day, including yesterday, when we had a ruling by EPA 
that chose not to follow sound science, it hurts consumers, it hurts 
producers in Arizona, and I find myself consistent in that.
  Let me just say again in closing, my reason for opposing this today 
is, as Members heard, no one challenged me when I said that we are 
spending $4.5 billion out of social security trust funds. That is why 
we all should oppose this rule and send it back until we can get 
bipartisanly accurate.
  Let us start shooting straight with the American public. If we are 
going to spend their social security dollars, let us tell them. If they 
are going to break the caps, let us tell them. If we are going to give 
a tax cut from a fictitious surplus that is not there, let us tell 
them.
  Let us start being honest, and we will find there will be bipartisan 
support for honesty, in opposition to what is going on in this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), on the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding time to me.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), and all the people who worked so hard on the Committee on 
Appropriations, for bringing this bill forward. It is a good bill.
  The rule we brought forth to bring it to the floor is a fair rule. It 
is an open rule. We brought more open rules than any time before in the 
history of this Congress to the floor. We are very proud of that.
  Someone spoke before, a colleague, and talked about the fact that he 
was opposed to the fact that we in the House are not going to lift 
sanctions on the Castro dictatorship until the three conditions that 
are within U.S. law are met, very simple conditions: the liberation of 
all political prisoners; the legalization of all political parties, 
labor unions, and the independent press; and the scheduling of three 
elections, internationally supervised.
  Since we are going to insist on that, I think it is important to 
remind our colleagues and the American people through C-Span that we 
have those conditions. We do not have sanctions on that dictatorship 90 
miles from our shores of people who have been suffering 40 years of 
oppression simply for the sake of having sanctions, but rather, because 
we are going to insist on a democratic transition that we know is going 
to come. Cuba is going to be free.
  We also do not want, at this point, to give Castro access to American 
agricultural products and financing, and further exacerbate the plight 
of the American farmer. Do we want Castro to be able to dump citrus and 
rice and tobacco and sugar on the American market, exacerbate the 
condition of the American farmer with U.S. financing? I do not think we 
should do that. The House is not going to do that.

                              {time}  1215

  I also want to talk about four reasons why we maintain our sanctions. 
Rene Gomez Manzano, Marta Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, and Felix 
Bonne, distinguished professionals all. They wrote an article 2\1/2\ 
years ago called ``The Homeland Belongs To All,'' where they called for 
that great crime in the eyes of Castro, the right to free elections. 
They were thrown in the dungeon where they are today, languishing along 
with thousands of other political prisoners in a rodent-infested 
dungeon and 120-degree heat without access to health care or even 
light.
  Those are reasons. We have many reasons. What we will say, until Cuba 
is free, no access to the U.S. market, and the Cuban people will 
forever remember, and that will be glory and dignity and honor, it will 
mean, for the generous American people.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with those who 
expressed concern about the funding levels of many of the important 
programs in this bill. I associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), with reference to the inadequate 
funding of customs, INS, and the Coast Guard.
  But more specifically of concern to me is the cut in funding for the 
Dante B. Fascell North-South Center at the University of Miami as well 
as the East-West Center in Hawaii.
  Created in response to the post-Cold War power vacuum, the Dante 
Fascell North-South Center has served as an incubator of innovative 
ideas to promote better relations among the United States, Canada, and 
the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean for the past 10 years.
  The Center produces nonpartisan, policy-relevant analysis on issues 
such as trade, investment, competitiveness, security, corruption, 
institutional reform, drug trafficking immigration, and the 
environment. As the only research and public policy study center 
dedicated to finding practical responses to hemispheric challenges 
affecting the United States, the center provides a valuable service.
  Zeroing out this center and zeroing out the East-West Center is 
irresponsible. Although I have no hope of altering the bill on the 
floor today, I do hope to work with the conferees to raise their 
conscious level with reference to the need for funding for this 
particularly important program.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have never really understood why our 
Republican colleagues are so opposed to COPS, the Community Oriented 
Policing Services. It works. It gets more law enforcement officers on 
our streets. It reduces crime. It involves a minimum, of administrative 
expense and delay and a maximum amount of crime prevention. The only 
reason I can think of that they oppose the COPS program is that they 
did not think of it first.
  Through COPS, we have added in my home area of Travis County, Texas, 
the equivalent of almost 300 new law enforcement officers in our 
neighborhoods and on our roads. Chief Knee, Chief Buesing, and Sheriff 
Frazer who are outstanding local law enforcement officers. Through the 
COPS program, we say to them and to crime fighters across America, 
``keep up the good work.'' We provide them the additional tools that 
they need to provide law enforcement that is highly visible and 
extremely effective.
  Some of these new officers in my hometown are helping to prevent 
school violence; some are addressing domestic violence. Some are 
combatting drugs and gang violence. Together, they are not only making 
our community safer, they are making all of us feel safer in our 
community.
  This week, I expect further announcements of the Troops to COPS 
program that permits some of our veterans who have gained skills in the 
military and need jobs the opportunity to transition into law 
enforcement, an excellent program. Yet, our Republican colleagues come 
forward today in this bill and propose to slash the COPS program by a 
billion dollars.
  I would say that, with this bill, the Republicans are not only 
cooking the books in a fiscally irresponsible manner, but neither set 
of the budget books that they use contain the priority for law 
enforcement that I think American families have a right to demand.
  This rule and this bill should be rejected.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I would just 
like to say that we oppose the rule for a number of reasons. I would 
say in response to what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said a 
few minutes ago, I note that, especially in the last few years, that we 
have lots of problems and difficulties in passing authorization bills.
  This bill, in effect, becomes almost an authorization bill, even 
though it is

[[Page H6982]]

an appropriation bill. It is critically important to permit legislative 
amendments on these bills. All three amendments that were accepted on 
this rule were Republican, and not only in nature; but there were 
Democrat amendments offered in the Committee on Rules, and none of them 
were permitted that were of legislative provisions.
  I will just read from the Committee on Rules put out by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) relative to what we have in this bill: ``The 
waiver of clause 2 of rule XI is necessary because the bill contains at 
least 67 legislative provisions and over 75 unauthorized programs in 
the bill.'' So for that reason and many others, we oppose the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the remaining 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of 
the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the bill. I 
want to give my heartfelt thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee 
for all the hard work under very difficult circumstances that he has 
done on this bill and finally crafting a bill that maintains a strategy 
of fiscal responsibility that the majority has been on the path of for 
all this summer.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
chairman of the full committee, who has been working so hard to carry 
out a strategy that was laid out by the Speaker of the House early in 
this year.
  That strategy was basically that we would lock up Social Security and 
not spend one dime of the Social Security surplus, unlike the Democrats 
for so many years has taken the surplus to spend on bigger government; 
that we would maintain the balanced budget that we brought because of a 
Republican Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and we would 
work as hard as we could to stay under the budget cap. We have been 
able to do that so far through this bill.
  Now I wish the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was still here, 
because I am standing here challenging him, as he asked me to do when 
he made the comment that, with this bill, we are breaking the cap and 
spending Social Security. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
  If we just can add, we take all of the 11 bills after this bill is 
passed and add them up, we are actually cutting spending from last 
year, real cuts to real spending, something the Democrat Congress has 
not been able to do in my lifetime. Real cuts and real spending.
  Now, we did make a mistake in 1997, and I am here to admit it. In the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we did not contemplate and did not put in 
the money to do the census, and we have to deal with that. But in 
declaring this an emergency, we do not break the cap, although, if 
someone votes to remove the emergency designation, they will be voting 
to break the cap.
  What we did was we are spending the on-budget surplus, not Social 
Security surplus, the on-budget surplus of $4.5 billion. That is 
reality. That is the real thing that we are doing here.
  Now, the underlying reality here is that the Democrats, the do-
nothing Democrats, because we know what their strategy is, they are 
trying to make sure we do nothing and trying to stop all of the good 
things that we have been able to do this year. They want to spend more 
money. They are crying out to spend more money.
  The administration has already put out four statements of 
administration policies saying that the appropriations bills that we 
have been passing are too low in spending. The other side of the aisle, 
Members have been here during this debate saying there is not enough 
spending, there is not enough spending.
  They want to break the cap. They want to spend Social Security 
surplus. They want more spending. That has been their legacy for nigh 
on these 30 or 40 years. They want to spend more money. We are keeping 
fiscal responsibility. We are keeping the balanced budget. We are not 
going to spend one dime of the Social Security surplus.
  Overall, there is only one essential thing to remember about this 
situation. If my colleagues vote to defeat this rule or offer an 
amendment that undermines this rule, they are collaborating with the 
forces for increased spending. Vote for the rule and vote for the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 205, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 369]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey

[[Page H6983]]


     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bilbray
     Deal
     Ehrlich
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1246

  Mr. CALLAHAN and Mr. SANFORD changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________