[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 113 (Wednesday, August 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H7193-H7221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H7193]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

                              (Continued)

                    Radiation Exposure Compensation


                        administrative expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses in accordance with 
     the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, $2,000,000.


           SALARIES AND EXPENSES, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     established by title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
     $7,199,000 and, in addition, up to $1,000,000 of

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation, 
     and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime 
     drug trafficking not otherwise provided for, to include 
     intergovernmental agreements with State and local law 
     enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, $316,792,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That any amounts 
     obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used 
     under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed 
     from this appropriation: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated balances remaining available at the end of the 
     fiscal year shall revert to the Attorney General for 
     reallocation among participating organizations in succeeding 
     fiscal years, subject to the reprogramming procedures 
     described in section 605 of this Act.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution 
     of crimes against the United States; including purchase for 
     police-type use of not to exceed 1,648 passenger motor 
     vehicles, of which 1,523 will be for replacement only, 
     without regard to the general purchase price limitation for 
     the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen 
     emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
     the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
     certificate of, the Attorney General, $2,357,015,000; of 
     which not to exceed $50,000,000 for automated data processing 
     and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment 
     and not to exceed $1,000,000 for undercover operations shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2001; of which not less 
     than $292,473,000 shall be for counterterrorism 
     investigations, foreign counterintelligence, and other 
     activities related to our national security; of which not to 
     exceed $14,000,000 shall remain available until expended; of 
     which not to exceed $10,000,000 is authorized to be made 
     available for making advances for expenses arising out of 
     contractual or reimbursable agreements with State and local 
     law enforcement agencies while engaged in cooperative 
     activities related to violent crime, terrorism, organized 
     crime, and drug investigations; and of which not less than 
     $59,429,000 shall be for the costs of conversion to 
     narrowband communications, and for the operations and 
     maintenance of legacy Land Mobile Radio systems: Provided, 
     That such amount shall be transferred to and administered by 
     the Department of Justice Wireless Management Office: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $45,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That no funds in this Act may be used to 
     provide ballistics imaging equipment to any State or local 
     authority which has obtained similar equipment through a 
     Federal grant or subsidy unless the State or local authority 
     agrees to return that equipment or to repay that grant or 
     subsidy to the Federal Government.
       In addition, $752,853,000 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; $1,287,000, 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 1,358 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,079 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; $932,000,000, of which not to exceed $1,800,000 for 
     research 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, 2001; of which not 
     to exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and of which not less than 
     $20,733,000 shall be for the costs of conversion to 
     narrowband communications and for the operations and 
     maintenance of legacy Land Mobile Radio systems: Provided, 
     That such amount shall be transferred to and administered by 
     the Department of Justice Wireless Management Office.
       In addition, $344,250,000, for such purposes, to remain 
     available until expended, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund.


                              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.

[[Page H7194]]

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses 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 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 3,075 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which 2,266 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; for protecting and 
     maintaining the integrity of the borders of the United States 
     including, without limitation, equipping, maintaining, and 
     making improvements to the infrastructure; 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, 
     $1,130,030,000; 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; 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; and of which not less than $18,510,000 shall 
     be for the costs of conversion to narrowband communications 
     and for the operations and maintenance of legacy Land Mobile 
     Radio systems: Provided, That such amount shall be 
     transferred to and administered by the Department of Justice 
     Wireless Management Office: Provided further, 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, 2000: 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.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 18, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``increased by $3,700,000)''.
       Page 24, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,700,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for 
I know what is their continuing interest in the immigration and 
naturalization services.
  I indicated that I had two amendments. I would like to speak to the 
amendment dealing with the border patrol.
  All of us suffered through the tragedy of the Resendez-Ramirez case 
in which it was tragically found that he had the opportunity to pass 
through the border patrol a number of times and was not detected at 
that time.
  The amendment that I am offering will add $3.7 million to the 
Enforcement and Border Affairs Account, monies coming out of the 
Federal Bureaus of Prisons Building and Construction Fund, which had 
$558 million, $147 million above fiscal year 1999.
  This amendment would increase the starting salary level of border 
patrol agents from GS-5 to GS-7 level. I have just learned that the 
U.S. Border Patrol agents are also not up to staff.
  As this subcommittee well knows, as this body well knows, the 1996 
immigration law authorized a total of 5,000 additional border patrol 
agents to be added at a rate of 1,000 per fiscal year from 1997 to 
2001.
  INS did not request any additional agents in its proposed budget for 
FY 2000. This is greatly due to the lucrative job market that finds 
great difficulty in the recruitment and the ability to employ these 
individuals.
  The concern is, of course, that in not being able to compete in this 
market, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the DEA, the FBI, and other law 
enforcement agencies, even local law enforcement agencies, have a 
higher salary than the starting GS-5 border patrol agent, which starts 
in at a level of $22,000 a year.
  Therefore, after speaking with budget analysis, we have offered an 
additional $3.7 million to increase the starting salary from GS-5 level 
to GS-7, which will be slightly over $30,000.
  We keep hearing about not being able to hire. We know the frustration 
of so many of our Members. We heard the pain of the tragedy of 
Resendez-Ramirez. Now we are facing an opportunity to do something, 
along with the Senate, which is also looking to do the same thing, to 
give the INS the opportunity to reach in a larger pool by increasing 
the salary to help these individuals be more competitive in being able 
to support their families.
  I ask my colleagues to support this. I believe we have from the CBO a 
statement regarding the compliance with the CBO.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that this has little impact on the outlay 
and, as well, has little impact on the budget authorizations. So I 
would ask that we recognize the difficulty that the INS has had.
  I am not here as an apologizer for the INS. I am simply here to say 
that we have heard so much about not being able to recruit INS 
officers, border patrol officers, and there is a great need on the 
northern border and on the southern border.
  We heard testimony in our committee there is a great need for 
increasing these numbers. We must get the ability to the INS to provide 
higher salaries to be able to compete in today's market.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             point of order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it would increase the level of budget outlays in the 
bill in violation of clause 2(f) of rule XXI. That rule states that it 
shall be in order to consider en bloc amendments proposing only to 
transfer appropriations among objects in the bill without increasing 
the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill.
  This amendment would increase the level of outlays in the bill 
because it comes from the INS Salaries and Expenses Account. The BA is 
$3.7 million. It is an 80 percent outlay, which means the first year 
outlay is $3 million.
  The object being decreased is the Prisons Buildings and Facilities 
Fund, which outlays at the same figure, 10 percent; and there are no 
outlays in the first year.
  So the net increase in outlays by this amendment is $3 million, in 
violation I think of the rule.
   Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ruling.

                              {time}  1645

  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the 
gentleman from Kentucky, I appreciate the response of the gentleman, I 
appreciate his interest in the INS, that I noted that there had been 
several amendments made in order by the majority that had points of 
order and were waived.
  Mr. Chairman, in this instance, I am speaking particularly to the 
gentleman from Kentucky, he may not have heard testimony, but he knows 
that I did come to his committee. We had testimony in the Subcommittee 
on Immigration and Claims on which I serve as the ranking member 
begging us for the ability to provide more border patrol agents. The 
gentleman from Kentucky in his good graces with the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) and others have provided resources, but they have 
not been able to be utilized by the INS because those salaries are 
keeping them from competing with other law enforcement agencies, even 
local law enforcement agencies at higher salaries. I would just offer 
for the good of

[[Page H7195]]

our borders to provide for well-trained border patrol agents, this 
movement would give us the ability to have those with college degrees, 
associate degrees and above, and give us the ability to provide the 
numbers of people we need at the northern border.
  I would ask, Mr. Chairman, in this instance that we have, because of 
the crucial nature, because of the tragedy of the Resendez-Ramirez 
case, that in looking at the outlays that we have the ability to waive 
the point of order, and I would ask that that occur.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, in response let me say the problem is that 
this puts us over our allocation. It is not a question of whether I 
want to do it or not, it is a question of whether or not it is legal. 
The gentlewoman's amendment simply puts us over our allocation. Under 
the rules, we simply cannot do that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any further Members wish to be heard on the point? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas proposes a net increase in the level of outlays 
in the bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address 
portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment is therefore not in 
order at this point in the reading. The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


  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'', $535,011,000, of which not to exceed 
     $400,000 for research shall remain available until expended: 
     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 38 permanent positions 
     and 38 full-time equivalent workyears and $3,909,000 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 none of the 
     funds available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     shall be used to pay an employee overtime pay in an amount in 
     excess of $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 
     1, 2000: Provided further, That funds may be used, without 
     limitation, for equipping, maintaining, and making 
     improvements to the infrastructure and the purchase of 
     vehicles for police type use within the limits of the 
     Enforcement and Border Affairs appropriation: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2000, 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.


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 19, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $15,600,000)''.
       Page 24, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,600,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals 
specifically with all of the angst and anger that I have heard from my 
colleagues in terms of their complaints with respect to the INS. It has 
to do with adding some 200 adjudicators to assist the INS in processing 
the many applications that come in, legitimate applications that come 
in, with respect to individuals seeking to secure visas and other forms 
of naturalization applications.
  This amendment will add 200 adjudicators and additional clerical 
support staff to be brought on board to augment the completion of 
naturalization applications. This is additional money on top of the 200 
adjudicators that the INS has already requested.
  Inasmuch as the gentleman from Kentucky has reserved a point of 
order, let me offer to give an illustration of the various tragedies 
that come about because of the overload in the INS offices and the 
tragedies that our Members face in trying to help resolve these. I say 
they are tragedies because they wind up ending in nonresolution. Take 
the case of Azmi Attia from Israel. He has been living in the United 
States, in Houston, for several years, he is a legal permanent 
resident, a college graduate, is employed with the Exxon Corporation, 
and applied for U.S. citizenship in early 1997. He desperately wanted 
to become a citizen so that he could receive a passport to travel back 
home to Israel to visit his dying mother. Due to the backlog, he was 
not granted citizenship in time before his mother died. Since then, he 
has suffered from severe depression and is coping every day with not 
becoming a citizen in time to go to be with his dying mother. This 
problem must be corrected and we must do it in Congress. The additional 
$15.6 million will do just that.
  I had asked earlier for the gentleman from Kentucky to waive the 
point of order. I would imagine the arguments are the same. And so I 
would offer this, Mr. Chairman. This is an important issue. I would 
hope the gentleman from Kentucky would view this as an important issue 
and on his time I would like to enter into a colloquy because I would 
like to withdraw this amendment because this is important to me. It is 
important to the colleagues who have called my office begging for 
relief. It is important for those people who have seen their mother die 
or not been able to be with their sister who was dying of cancer, that 
we be able to utilize the system in a way that will move these cases 
forward. I would like to see some effort in conference to provide some 
additional adjudicators because we have looked everywhere to offset and 
there is always something because the authorizers and the appropriators 
obviously look at issues in a way that sometimes matches and sometimes 
does not.
  This is an important issue. I would certainly appreciate the 
opportunity to work with the ranking member and, of course, the 
chairman on trying to relieve this heavy burden that so many of our 
colleagues are facing.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The amendment touches text not yet read for amendment and it results 
in an increase in outlays and does not warrant protection under clause 
2(f) of rule XXI.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I would be happy to, but I do not think the Chair will 
let me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will once again recognize the gentlewoman 
from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I have 
withdrawn the amendment. What I was saying is that this is a crucial 
issue, that so many of our colleagues have indicated----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  The Chair understood that the gentlewoman wanted to be recognized to 
withdraw her amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, I would like to withdraw the 
amendment.

[[Page H7196]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  As I indicated, this past amendment is an amendment that so many of 
my colleagues have indicated they have a problem with the backlog and 
that this amendment was requiring 200 adjudicators. I had asked for a 
waiver of the point of order, which we did not get, and so I was 
interested in inquiring of the chairman and I would like to inquire of 
the ranking member, in helping to work with us on the question of 
possible review of additional adjudicators to assist in this backlog. 
This is something that we have heard from the Members, this is 
something we have heard from from the INS, and it is a difficult 
problem.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I appreciate the gentlewoman's bringing this matter to 
the body's attention. The fact is that last year, the current year, we 
provided $172 million for the purposes of trying to reduce that backlog 
of naturalization, which in most cases is now 2 years. The wait for an 
individual to be naturalized is 2 years. That is incredibly long. But 
we provided the big money this current year and we provided $124 
million in this bill, which was the amount the administration requested 
for this purpose, and they assured us they would be able to reduce the 
backlog with this sum of money.
  Now, the gentlewoman knows that I am not happy with the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service. This is another reason why I think we need 
to think anew about how we handle all of the matters now dealt with by 
the INS. But for the moment in this bill, we have provided every penny 
that was requested of us for the purposes of reducing the backlog.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, let me just simply say 
that I hope that we can work through this issue. The INS has indicated 
that the backlog is because they do not have the number of adjudicators 
that they need.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentlewoman will yield on that, that is not their 
story to me. If they are requesting more money or if they say this is 
not enough money, that is news to me because this is the amount they 
asked of us.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman has already said that the INS 
has difficulty knowing with one hand what the other hand is doing. What 
I do know is that we who are in the districts working with these 
individuals, seeing people not be able to visit their dying relatives 
are suffering.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) on 
the importance of at least getting our caseloads out of our office to 
help these people who are suffering and cannot get to visit their dying 
relatives.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman very much, first 
of all. This is not the first time the gentlewoman has brought this 
subject up. This is one subject that the gentlewoman discusses with me 
often. As I was just saying to a staff member, if we can do something 
about this, then maybe on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and 
Friday mornings, there will not be that line of 200 people around the 
block at my district office, people that we welcome but people that 
certainly are coming there to find out why the backlog exists somewhere 
else and not in my office.
  I join the gentlewoman and I surely would join anyone else in trying 
to solve this problem and deal with it the proper way.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Kentucky's angst, if you 
will, with the INS. I know all the work the gentleman from New York has 
done. If we can work together as we move this bill toward conference, I 
would greatly appreciate it. I think it would release a lot of us from 
the horrible pressures of the caseload that we have of such tragedies, 
of people not being able to have their cases adjudicated who are doing 
it legally. That is what we want to support, legal immigration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    violent crime reduction programs

       In addition, $1,267,225,000, 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, $90,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That no funds shall be available 
     for the site acquisition, design, or construction of any 
     Border Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson sector.

                         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 708, of which 
     602 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, $3,082,004,000: 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 not to exceed 
     $6,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $90,000,000 shall remain available for necessary operations 
     until September 30, 2001: 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, $22,524,000, 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, 
     $558,791,000, 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 compliance with provisions set forth in section 605 of 
     this Act.


                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 five for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.


   limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries, 
                              incorporated

       Not to exceed $2,490,000 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,

[[Page H7197]]

     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, $143,436,000, 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.
       In addition, for grants, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by sections 819, 821, and 822 of the 
     Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 
     $74,000,000, to remain available until expended.


               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended 
     (``the 1994 Act''), $1,629,500,000 to remain available until 
     expended; 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 paragraphs 
     (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 
     $40,000,000 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 $20,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 
     102(2) of H.R. 728; 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; and of which $686,500,000 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, and of which 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for the Cooperative Agreement 
     Program.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Scott:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--state and local law enforcement assistance'', after 
     the first dollar amount (relating to the aggregate amount), 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $87,300,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--state and local law enforcement assistance'', after 
     the third dollar amount (relating to Boys and Girls Clubs), 
     insert the following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--state and local law enforcement assistance'', after 
     the sixth dollar amount (relating to violent offender 
     incarceration and trust in sentencing incentive grants), 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $137,300,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--violent crime reduction programs, state and local 
     law enforcement assistance'', after the first dollar amount 
     (relating to the aggregate amount), insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $87,300,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--violent crime reduction programs, state and local 
     law enforcement assistance'', after the fifteenth dollar 
     amount (relating to grants for residential substance abuse 
     treatment for State prisoners), insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $37,300,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--violent crime reduction programs, state and local 
     law enforcement assistance'', after the eighteenth dollar 
     amount (relating to drug courts), insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. SCOTT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would transfer approximately 
one-half, that is $137 million, of the truth-in-sentencing prison grant 
funds to crime prevention and drug treatment programs.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the truth in sentencing funds, which 
only about half of the States even qualify for, can only be spent for 
prison construction. At this point some States have already overbuilt 
their prison space, and my own State of Virginia is trying to lease out 
space to other States in the Federal Government of about 3,200 excess 
prison beds. There is no reason for us to provide funds to build prison 
beds that States do not need.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, States are already spending tens of 
billions of dollars on prison construction, so the entire fund of $300 
million spread out among the few States that actually qualify cannot 
possibly make any measurable difference in the number of prison beds 
built, much less have an overall effect on the crime rate. But if that 
money is targeted to crime prevention and treatment programs, we can 
make a significant difference on crime.
  Mr. Chairman, this truth-in-sentencing policy is a poor policy to 
begin with. The so-called truth is actually only half truth in 
sentencing because the half truth is that those who are subjected to 
the truth in sentencing cannot get out early. The whole truth is that 
others cannot be held longer either. Virginia changed to 1\1/2\ to 10 
year sentence where the average served was 2\1/2\ years to a sentence 
where everyone served 5 years. They doubled the average time served. 
The low-risk prisoners cannot get out early, but the high-risk 
prisoners that could not make parole and could have been held for 10 
years cannot be held longer either.
  Mr. Chairman, another problem with the truth in sentencing is the 
absence of parole eligibility, eliminates a major incentive the 
prisoners have to qualify for education and job training programs. They 
lose their incentive, they do not have to tell the parole board 
anything, and so they are more likely to come out as dumb, as 
untrained, as they went in. Education and job training are two of the 
major components in crime reduction, of recidivism. It is such poor 
policy, Mr. Chairman, that 23 States did not even ask for money in last 
year's budget, and so we have a situation where the money could be 
spent much better.
  The Conference on Juvenile Justice has just begun, and we can make a 
commitment to reduce crime by passing this amendment. This amendment 
would increase funding for building and running boys and girls clubs, 
in public housing and in sites for at-risk youth by $50 million. Boys 
and girls clubs have been shown through study and research to be cost-
effective ways of reducing crime for at-risk youth.
  The amendment also provides for an additional $37 million for 
residential drug treatment for prisoners before they are released and 
approximately $90 million for drug courts. Both prison drug treatment 
and drug courts have been shown to significantly reduce crime at a 
lower cost than just simply jailing drug addicts.
  So this amendment would not only reduce crime, it will reduce the 
amount of money that we spend. So let us show our commitment to 
reducing crime in this country by passing this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Either the gentleman's amendment is not drafted properly or he 
intends to cut the local law enforcement block grant by 50 million, and 
that is a program that is critical to our State and local law 
enforcements' fight to reduce crime. The amendment cuts the funds 
available for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, State prison 
grants, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), by 20 
percent; and the Committee has received numerous letters by our 
colleagues' governors, their State prosecutors, their State prison 
officials, supporting the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant that it 
refers to be cut here, and the Truth-in-Sentencing grants and SCAAP, 
which this amendment cuts.

[[Page H7198]]

  Convicted felons, Mr. Chairman, serve only 38 percent of their 
sentences on average. Truth-in-Sentencing grants, which this would cut, 
which require violent offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences, 
are a vital and sensible response to the problem that we face.
  While there may be several reasons for the recent drop in violent 
crime, the fact remains, prison works. The simple fact is that prisons 
incapacitate offenders. Incarceration, unlike probation or parole, 
makes it impossible for offenders to victimize the public as long as 
they are locked up. Historic figures show that after incarceration 
rates have increased crime rates have moderated, and I would submit to 
my colleagues that is exactly the case we face today as America right 
now is enjoying the lowest violent crime rate in recordkeeping history.
  On the other hand, imprisonment is actually used less frequently than 
are alternative sanctions. On any given day, seven offenders are on the 
street for every three who are behind bars. In 1991, 45 percent of 
State prisoners were on probation or parole at the time they committed 
their last crime. Together these parole and probation violators 
committed 90,639 violent crimes while under supervision in the 
community. That is 13,100 murders, 12,900 rapes, 19,300 assaults, and 
39,500 committed by people on parole or probation. In 1992, over 40 
percent of persons on death row were on probation, parole, or pretrial 
release at the time they committed the murder for which they are now on 
death row.
  The lack of prison space is a national problem. When we passed the 
legislation in 1995, only 12 States were Truth-in-Sentencing States. By 
the end of 1998, 27 States and the District of Columbia required 
violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their prison 
sentences. Another 13 States have adopted Truth-in-Sentencing laws 
requiring violent offenders to serve a substantial portion of their 
sentence before being eligible for release.
  The need for additional prison capacity remains. While some States 
may have excess prison capacity, other States are a long way from 
reducing their overcrowding problem, and I suspect the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime who I 
am sure will speak momentarily, will elucidate on these points.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment, 
although it has a worthy goal of increasing funding for certain 
programs, unfortunately would cut the programs that are working in 
bringing down violent and other crimes in the country, and I would urge 
the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, and I do so with all 
due respect to the gentleman who offered it who is a good friend and 
has served on this committee with me and the Subcommittee on Crime for 
quite some time and is the ranking member. I know he has offered this 
same proposal now, I think, 4 years in a row; and he genuinely does not 
believe in the purpose or the usefulness of these grants that are going 
out under the truth in sentencing, but I must say that it has been 
remarkable in my judgment, and I think the judgment of most who have 
looked at this, how successful these truth-in-sentencing grants have 
been.
  As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has indicated, we now 
have seen a dramatic increase in the number of States that have adopted 
the 85 percent rule over where they were just a few years ago when we 
started this incentive grant program to help States build the prison 
spaces they need in order to be able to house violent repeat offenders. 
At one time I think there were only 6 or 7 states when we started this 
program that had the 85 percent rule requiring one to serve at least 
that percentage of their sentence then.
  In just about every State they are going through the revolving doors. 
We now have about 40 States that are engaged in activities to increase 
the sentencing at least towards the goal of 85 percent of receiving 
some money under this program. I believe I am correct in saying that 31 
or 32 States that have actually achieved the objective and are now 
requiring their violent repeat felons to serve at least 85 percent of 
their sentences, and this is a major factor in the reduction in the 
rate of violent crime in this country the last couple of years. Very 
clearly that is the case.
  We certainly do not want to jeopardize that; we do not want to 
reverse that.
  Now we have far too many crimes every year being committed in this 
country. I think we used to have about 165 back in 1960, 165 violent 
crimes for every 100,000 people in our population. That went up to 680 
or so a few years ago, and now it is down to the lowly amount of 611 
violent crimes for every 100,000 people in our population, way too 
high; but this is the right direction it is trending, and the truth-in-
sentencing grant program to the States to help them build prison beds 
in return for requiring this longer sentence to be served is an 
integral and important reason why that is so.
  Now I am all for boys and girls clubs, and I am all for drug 
treatment and for drug courts. This legislation provides $40 million up 
from $20 million in fiscal year 1998 for boys and girls clubs. It 
provides $63 million for the drug treatment programs, the same level as 
last year. It provides $40 million for drug courts, up from $30 million 
in the last fiscal year. And so while the causes that the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) advocates that the money be placed towards in 
lieu of the truth-in-sentencing grants are all causes which everyone in 
this Congress supports, they are not underfunded.
  We need to find balance in this program, and we need to have a common 
sense approach to this, and no one is arguing that incarceration alone 
is the answer. Community-based prevention programs such as prison drug 
testing and meaningful work opportunities for inmates are just a few of 
the additional efforts that need to be done.
  But this amendment, as I said earlier, has been offered four times in 
a row, four different occasions for an appropriations bill. 
Fortunately, it has been defeated each time, and I would urge my 
colleagues to defeat it again this time. We need to continue this 
successful truth-in-sentencing program, not interrupt it; and I urge a 
no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I hold here in my hand a copy of a letter 
from 34 of our Nation's Governors who are urging us not to cut this 
program, and I would submit that for the Record, if the gentleman would 
like.

                                                    July 20, 1999.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman,
     Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.

     Hon. Harold Rogers, Chairman,
     Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and 
         the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.

     Hon. David R. Obey,
     Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.

     Hon. Jose Serrano,
     Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and 
         the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Gentlemen: We are writing to ask you to restore 
     funding for FY 2000 for the Violent Offender Incarceration/
     Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Prison Construction Grant 
     Program at the FY 1999 level without offsets, set-asides or 
     earmarks.
       Relying on the incentives in VOI/TIS, most of our states 
     have adopted longer sentences for violent crimes and 
     instituted other changes to ensure that the actual time 
     served by violent offenders is consistent with their 
     sentences. We all have projects in various stages of planning 
     and implementation, which depend upon VOI/TIS being funded 
     through FY 2000.
       These funds are vital to states' efforts to get violent 
     offenders off our nation's streets and to keep them off 
     longer. We believe the reduction in violent crime rates that 
     has occurred in the last few years is partly because repeat 
     violent offenders are being taken off and kept off the 
     streets in record numbers--due in no small part to the impact 
     of the VOI/TIS State Prison Construction Grant Program.
       However, the number of violent offenders coming into our 
     prisons, combined with those being held for longer period of 
     time, continue to make our violent offender prison 
     populations rise. These offenders are also more costly to 
     house and manage securely. Reliable statistical projections 
     by prudent state planners--as well as the U.S. Department of 
     Justice--indicate it will be well into the next decade before 
     population figures for violent offenders level out. The job 
     of getting the maximum feasible number of violent offenders 
     off the streets for longer periods of time has not been 
     finished.

[[Page H7199]]

       We appreciate the leadership you have demonstrated in 
     establishing and funding the VOI/TIS program and for the many 
     other ways in which your committees have supported state and 
     local efforts to fight crime. However, we are deeply 
     concerned about the elimination of VOI/TIS funding and urge 
     you to restore VOI/TIS funds at the FY 1999 level for FY 
     2000.
       Your consideration is deeply appreciated.
           Sincrely,
                                   (Signed by 34 State Governors.)

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like for the gentleman to do 
that.
  I think that speaks worlds of testimony. The governors like it, it is 
a great program, and we should continue doing it. We must continue 
doing it for the safety of our kids on the street.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the Scott amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The chairman of 
our subcommittee has very strongly told us over and over again, and I 
believe him, that our subcommittee has played a major role through some 
of its actions in reducing crime; and I, as a new member to the 
committee and as ranking member, I continue to work with him to make 
sure that that happens, and I have no doubt that his statements are 
correct, that this subcommittee has played a role.
  But I think what we have to look at here is that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), one glance at it, 
it supports that whole notion that some of us share that the best way 
to fight crime is to prevent it and that the best way to prevent crime 
is to supply dollars and create programs that in fact benefit people, 
especially young people, so that they will not be in a life of crime, 
and any time, and my colleagues have to understand this, at any time to 
some of us colleagues speak about spending dollars on building prisons, 
which is in many cases or in most instances what this ends up being.
  Well, we feel that too much money in this country is already being 
spent on building prisons. We spend more money on building prisons than 
we spend in many instances on education. So I think that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is one that we 
should pay special attention to, especially when he divvies up the 
money in what I think is a wonderful and a direct way, prison drug 
treatment, the drug court program, boys and girls clubs. When we do 
this together, we are in fact being very supportive of the work that 
governors and other people are doing throughout the States. But the 
fact of life is, as he points out, that in so many cases there are 
problems. Twenty-three States did not receive any funds in FY 1999. 
There is no excuse for that, and something is wrong. He does not want 
that money to go to waste, and he knows how best to use it.
  And so I would hope that people would look at this amendment for what 
it is. It is an amendment that in fact fights crime. It is an amendment 
that in fact speaks to exactly what some of my colleagues have been 
speaking about and that we are all so proud of that is happening in 
this country, and I think that rather than just react to it 
automatically, the way we always do, we should look at it for what it 
is worth, and it is worth a lot and we should be supportive of it.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scott amendment and want to 
applaud my colleague for bringing this amendment forward again this 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, for those who have voted against the amendment in the 
past, they may have done it because they thought they needed more 
prisons. But understand that the crime rate in most States is down and 
the need for more prison space is down, so that even for those people 
who supported this program from which the funds would be transferred in 
the past, who thought they had a rational basis for it, in many 
communities jail construction and prison construction has just become 
an employment program now.
  Mr. Chairman, let me assure Members that the places to which the 
money is being transferred under this amendment would employ people 
also. So we are down to a choice between whether we build some more 
prisons, which are not needed, even if you think being harder on crime 
is important and has played an effective role in reducing crime. Once 
that effective role is played, then you eliminate the need for the 
money to have additional prison space, because during the time when the 
crime rate was on the incline, going up, we built a lot of prison beds 
and prison space in this country, and now that the crime rate is going 
down, we have got more than we really need. So we cannot even justify 
it, even if you claim to prefer to be hard on crime.
  In fact, it would be better if you did not support these prevention 
programs to which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is proposing 
to transfer the money. It would actually be better to just void the 
program out and put the money in debt reduction than it would be to 
continue to spend the money on a program serving no useful purpose.
  But that is not what I am advocating. I am advocating transferring 
the funds, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has proposed in 
his amendment.
  Now, why am I doing that? First of all, the gentleman is transferring 
$50 million of the funds to the Boys and Girls Programs. Why do we want 
to do that? Because what we understand is that the period of time from 
the time that kids get out of school to the time that these working 
parents who have to work to sustain this economic boom that we are 
having, unemployment is down and jobs are up so more people are 
working, the time that most of the crime occurs among young people in 
this country is the period between the end of school and the time that 
their parents come home.
  When is the most effective time and the most need for the Boys and 
Girls Club? What purpose do they serve? They fill this time void 
between the end of school and the time that their parents come home 
with constructive, important activities that are very positive, and 
that is why this program is so successful and so much needed.
  It transfers $37.3 million to the prison drug treatment program. Now, 
why does the gentleman do that? Because, again, this is an effective 
program. What we have been doing is putting people in jail because of 
drug use or drug sales. They go in the jail with a drug habit, and they 
serve their time and they come right back out, still addicted to drugs, 
with no drug treatment while they were in prison. We had a captive 
audience of people who were addicted, and we did nothing about it 
during that period of time.
  One of the most cost effective things we could do is to treat people 
while we have them as a captive audience.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I will wrap-up. I just want 
to address this third thing that we are doing with the money under the 
Scott amendment. The gentleman is transferring $50 million to the Drug 
Court Program.
  Now, I can tell you, because I have a Drug Court in my Congressional 
District, I have several Drug Courts in my Congressional District, and 
what they are doing is they are intervening with people who come in to 
the court system for drug offenses and they are being proactive with 
them. They are identifying the problems they have of addiction. They 
are getting them into treatment programs. They are making sure that 
when somebody comes into that drug program, the Drug Court, they are 
not processed through the system without having their problem dealt 
with. So what you see is this reduced recidivism, which, again, has 
contributed to the reduction in crime and the reduced need for prison 
space.
  This is just a wonderful, good amendment, and we all ought to be 
supportive of it. I urge my colleagues to support this wonderful 
amendment.
  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 ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H7200]]

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
will be postponed.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
consider an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 24, line 14, after the dollar figure insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 8, after the dollar figure insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 
minutes. I simply want to acknowledge the importance of programs that 
will help our youth. They are important in my district, they are 
important across the Nation. This $2 million will help enhance 
substance abuse programs for our young people, which we know is 
devastating. Our young people are out abusing alcohol, they are abusing 
drugs.
  If we are going to invest in the future of our young people, this $2 
million will help spread an additional opportunity for inner cities, 
rural communities and all throughout the Nation to provide programs for 
our young people.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this Appropriation bill 
that will increase some of the funding for juvenile justice programs 
within the Department of Justice. Specifically, my amendment adds $2 
million to the Demonstration Project grants that are designed to reduce 
drug use among our youth. Currently, these project grants are funded at 
$10 million.
  Although $10 million is a considerable amount for these programs, I 
feel that this issue is so important that we should add an additional 
$2 million. The offset for this funding increase would come from the 
Federal Prison funding for Buildings and Facilities.
  The Administration requested additional funds for the juvenile 
justice programs administered by the Justice Department, but the 
funding remained the same from FY 1999. This amendment increases the 
funding to the level that was requested by the Administration.
  We must increase the amount of funding for programs that reduce drug 
use among our young people because drug use has increased dramatically 
in this decade. Since 1992, marijuana use has doubled, going from 3.4 
percent to 7.1 percent in 1996.
  The use of other drugs has also increased. There has been a rise in 
heroine use among young people who are smoking and sniffing that 
substance. This rise has occurred specifically in small metropolitan 
areas. In 1995 21.6 percent of heroine users were 12 to 17 years old 
and 40.2 percent were 18 to 25 years old.
  Clearly, this increase in drug use needs to be addressed in any 
method that has proven to work. The Demonstration Projects provide 
local communities the opportunity to apply for funding for local 
programs that have been proven to work.
  The correlation of drug use and the increase in juvenile crime cannot 
be overstated. programs that work to reduce drug use among juveniles 
will also work indirectly to reduce youth crime.
  As we have witnessed in the past several months, juvenile crime is an 
important issue for many of us. All of us are eager to find solutions 
that work to stem the tide of youth violence. Many of us are equally 
concerned about the increase of youth drug use, and these concerns are 
interrelated.
  The $2 million offset for this funding is coming from the Building 
and facilities funding for the Federal Prison system. This small amount 
for building more jails to house young people and others who are 
convicted of drug offenses should be put to use preventing these 
crimes.
  This offset has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office and 
will have no impact on the funding on this bill. I ask My Colleagues to 
support this amendment. The money we spend on improving prison 
facilities can be put to use to prevent the need for more federal 
prisons.
  None of us wants to see another generation of young people damaged by 
drug abuse. Many of us remember how devastating drugs were in previous 
generations and this is something we can do to prevent a similar 
tragedy.
  The young people in this country deserve to have hope for their 
future and this amendment restores some of that hope. Programs that are 
proven to work on the local level to combat drug use should receive as 
much support as possible by the federal government. I urge your 
support.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. In 
fact, this program was one that was begun by this subcommittee some 
time back, and this would augment that program. I want to thank the 
gentlewoman for offering the amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, any time you have the chairman agreeing, 
and mathematically he has the votes, you are in good shape, so I will 
just sit down.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the chairman and the ranking member.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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''), $1,193,450,000, to remain available until expended, 
     which shall be derived from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust 
     Fund; of which $552,000,000 shall be for grants, contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and other assistance authorized by 
     part E of title I of the 1968 Act, for State and Local 
     Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance Improvements, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 of said Act, as 
     authorized by section 1001 of title I of said Act, as amended 
     by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), of which $47,000,000 
     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; of which 
     $9,000,000 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 $206,750,000 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 
     $28,000,000 which shall be used exclusively for the purpose 
     of strengthening civil legal assistance programs for victims 
     of domestic violence: Provided, That, of these funds, 
     $5,200,000 shall be provided to the National Institute of 
     Justice for research and evaluation of violence against 
     women, $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, and 
     $10,000,000 shall be available to the Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention for the Safe Start 
     Program, to be administered as authorized by part C of the 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 1974, as amended; of 
     which $34,000,000 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, 
     and for local demonstration projects; 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 $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 $1,300,000 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

[[Page H7201]]

     in Public Law 105-119, but all references in such provisions 
     to 1998 shall be deemed to refer instead to 2000: Provided 
     further, That funds made available in fiscal year 2000 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. 6 Offered by Mr. Cook

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Cook:
       Page 28, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 29, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 32, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 32, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 43, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,972,000)''.
       Page 43, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,972,000)''.
       Page 43, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,972,000)''.
       Page 43, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,972,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), the entire committee and their staff 
for the good bill that they have brought before us, but I believe my 
amendment will make this an even better bill by cutting nearly $12 
million in unnecessary administrative costs from the International 
Trade Administration.
  To give Americans the tax cuts they deserve and protect Social 
Security and Medicare, we have to continue to cut spending when 
appropriate. When taxpayers are forced to live within their budgets, 
bureaucrats must do the same. Groups such as Citizens Against 
Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union both have listed the 
International Trade Administration program as one that needs to be 
reformed, and both groups are endorsing this amendment.
  The American taxpayers should not be called on to pay more for 
corporate welfare programs such as this. In a capitalist country, 
taxpayers should not be forced to fund trade shows and advertising for 
corporations like Daimler-Chrysler and Archer-Daniels-Midland, who can 
afford to do it themselves. That is the role for the private sector.
  Although I would have liked to have made deeper cuts in the ITA 
funding, this amendment only forces it to live within its 1999 budget, 
as there are many other programs forced to do in this bill.
  The amendment increases funds for two critical programs, a $2.5 
million increase for the Violence Against Women programs and $2.5 
million for the Bulletproof Vest Grant Program for local police 
officers. Both are deserving. The Violence Against Women program 
provides resources for law enforcement issues specifically targeted at 
protecting women and children. The increase in the Bulletproof Vest 
Grants Program, combined with the existing matching requirements, will 
mean approximately 18,000 additional vests to protect officers on the 
street.
  A vote for this amendment will cut nearly $12 million from what I 
think is corporate welfare and protect the American taxpayer from over 
bureaucratization at the Commerce Department. A vote for this amendment 
will reduce the deficit by $6 million. A vote for this amendment will 
protect America's police officers and ensure that Violence Against 
Women programs are adequately funded. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Utah is well intended, 
but the gentleman knows not what he does here with his amendment.
  I probably have one of the highest conservative cut-and-slash ratings 
in Congress and try to look at every program as any taxpayer would who 
is out there working hard to pay the bill for government, but taking 
$12 million from the United States Foreign Commercial Service Office 
could be a disaster.
  Right now, in fact if you pick up the newspapers of the past few 
weeks, you will look at a staggering trade deficit in this country. It 
should be of concern to everyone who is worred about job growth and 
economic opportunity for the future. That Trade Deficit means that we 
are importing many goods and selling less goods in the international 
market.
  Now, who helps our small business people compete in this 
international arena? It is the Foreign Commercial Service. In fact, Mr. 
Chairman, we should be increasing the expenditure in this program more 
than probably any other program in this budget because it helps medium 
and small businesses compete in the international arena.
  If we ever needed to create good paying jobs, particularly in the 
manufacturing sector, which is going down and down being replaced with 
more service and low-paying and part-time jobs. We should be supporting 
increases, rather than decreases, in this area.
  This is not any type of corporate wefare. The big corporations do 
well on their own. I have been involved in international trade. The 
IBMs and the big corporations around the world, they do fairly well. 
This program is not for them. This service is for the medium and small 
businesses across our country that have a tough time getting in to the 
international markets.
  This proposed cut would force us to close offices, and in emerging 
markets where there is great economic opportunity. In the former 
Eastern Block, we do not even have full-time people. In Slovakia, one 
area of particular interest to me, we have one part-time person to help 
our U.S. business interests in the entire country of Slovakia coming 
from Vienna on a part-time basis in a new potential great market. Here 
we can create jobs and economic opportunity, not only for our citizens, 
but for the people who want the same things for the people in their 
country.

                              {time}  1730

  My colleagues, I have been there, I have talked to these folks, I 
have seen what we are doing. It is not enough. These countries do not 
want our foreign aid, they do not want our assistance in doing 
business--not a handout. They would like to conduct honest, open 
business. And when we provide this little bit of assistance with our 
foreign commercial officers who have meager resources, probably with 
the personal a third of even our AID and giveaway programs, something 
is indeed wrong. We have a chance to correct it.
  So we would be making a terrible mistake to accept this particular 
amendment. I could bore the House detailing the many hardships that 
this cut would force. Most distructively we would have to close 31 
posts overseas. We should be providing more assistance to small U.S. 
business in these emerging markets and giving our small and medium 
businesses an opportunity to compete in these potential markets.
  While I know this amendment sounds well-intended, but it would be the 
worst disaster that we could impose upon the small- and medium-sized 
business people in this country that are struggling to enter into these 
markets and who are the greatest creators of jobs and opportunity for 
this Nation.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in 
pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an

[[Page H7202]]

 amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for the COPS program on page 32 of 
the bill provides $268 million, which is the amount in the bill. This 
amendment would add $2.5 million over and above the authorized level 
and exceeds the authorization, so it does violate clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Utah wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. COOK. I would, Mr. Chairman.
  The parliamentarian has ruled that within the 1997 budget agreement, 
this does fit within it. I would point out that the Congressional 
Budget Office has scored this as reducing the budget authority to the 
2000 bill by $6 million and reducing outlays by $7 million. I think it 
all fits within, and we have had the indication from the 
parliamentarian that there is not a problem with it in that regard.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The question is not budget levels, but rather, authorization levels. 
A proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of 
persuasion on the question of whether it is supported by an 
authorization in law.
  Having reviewed the amendment and entertained the argument on the 
point of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of 
appropriation in question is authorized in law. Instead, it is apparent 
that the amendment causes the pending appropriation to exceed the level 
authorized in law.
  The Chair is, therefore, constrained to sustain the point of order 
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to engage the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, in a colloquy, if I might.
  The United Nations has a very valued State Department employee that 
has worked over there for a long time named Linda Shenwick, and Ms. 
Shenwick has brought to the attention of a number of Members of 
Congress waste, fraud, and abuse at the United Nations. As a result of 
her giving this information to Congress, she has not only been 
chastised, she has been removed from her position by the State 
Department and Madeleine Albright. We have written to Madeleine 
Albright about this and have not received a response. We have also 
written to the Inspector General of the State Department, and they have 
said that they do not feel that they are inclined to want to 
investigate this.
  I would just like to say that we have had a number of whistleblowers 
before my committee, Mr. Chairman, and we have found that there are 
real repressive actions being taken against these whistleblowers to try 
to keep them from talking to the Congress of the United States about 
waste, fraud, and abuse in various agencies of government.
  So I would like to just ask if there is anything that could be done 
in the Shenwick case to let the State Department know that this kind of 
action is not going to be tolerated by moving people out of their 
positions, by threatening them with their jobs so that they will not 
talk to Congress. I think it turns the entire situation on its head. We 
ought to be encouraging people to tell us where there is waste, fraud, 
and abuse; and they should not have to worry about losing their jobs if 
they do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made a point of this, and 
we have read only the press accounts, some of the press accounts of 
this matter. It is certainly not a very good way to lobby for funds for 
an agency to treat the Congress in that fashion, if, in fact, that 
occurred. Certainly, we will keep all of these facts in mind as we 
finally come to a conclusion later this year on the adequate funding 
level for the State Department.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I might 
just ask the gentleman, if we find, and I think that the gentleman will 
find after his investigation into this and his staff, that she is being 
chastised because she gave Congress this information, will the 
gentleman try to let the State Department know in some way, maybe 
through the appropriations process, that this is something that is not 
going to be tolerated by the Congress?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield again, we do 
not have the investigative forces that would allow us the luxury of 
being able to delve into this matter in the way it should be. Perhaps 
another committee of the Congress would have more resources with which 
to deal with that, and I would like to know the conclusions of that 
committee that does it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my committee 
will be looking into it, and I will give the gentleman that 
information. But we are convinced that this kind of repressive action 
is being taken by State, and I hope that when the gentleman does the 
final appropriation in conference that the gentleman will let the State 
Department know that this kind of action will not be tolerated.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we will be very interested to know the 
conclusions of the investigation.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  On this item that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was just 
discussing, we have serious concerns about having congressional input 
or involvement at this point. As we understand it, this item is in the 
Office of the Special Counsel which was established by Congress. This 
issue is being looked at by that office, and without speaking much on 
this, it just seems to us totally improper at this point to commit in 
any way to any kind of congressional involvement when the fact is that 
this is being looked at legally, and testimony has been taken, it is my 
understanding, from both sides. I think that the proper way and the 
prudent way to go--I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the 
prudent way to go is to wait for the special counsel to come back with 
a proper ruling that speaks to this issue.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated case. We 
had four whistleblowers before my committee just recently, all of whom 
have either been threatened or chastised for talking to Congress about 
problems that have occurred in their agencies.
  Ms. Shenwick's case is the latest in a series of those, and we want 
to be able to encourage people to tell where there is waste, fraud, and 
abuse in government. If whistleblowers are not protected, if they are 
not allowed to tell us if they know they are going to be threatened 
with their jobs, then they will not come forward.
  I would like to be able to assure anybody in this government who 
believes that there is wrongdoing occurring or waste in their 
department occurring, that they will be able to come to us, whether 
they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and know that they will 
not be impugned.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that and 
I respect the gentleman's comments, but that is precisely the reason 
why Congress established an independent, nonpartisan Office of Special 
Counsel. I think that one of the things we have to decide around here 
is if we are going to take their work seriously. I would hope that, 
while the gentleman and his committee, sir, have the right to look at 
this, that we allow for this Special Counsel to first tell us not only 
about this case, but in general what is going on so that we can all 
take action together. I am sure that the gentleman will not be alone if 
this is not as it should be.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, the case that we are talking about, I have no problem with the 
special counsel looking at this and making a judgment. But during that 
period of time, the lady in question is out of her job without any 
income, and she has a family. So the case could drag on for a long 
period of time, and she is suffering severe penalties because of that.
  So it seems to me that there ought to be some way to protect these 
people

[[Page H7203]]

while an investigation is taking place so that they do not feel their 
job is in peril because they are telling Congress where there is waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments, but I still feel that the gentleman perhaps may 
be questioning the kind of job that the Special Counsel's office is 
doing, and that is a totally different item. But I think if we are 
going to have any kind of order in these issues, we should just wait 
for them to come back and give us the information necessary, and I hope 
that the gentleman takes that into consideration when he takes further 
steps.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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.

                  Community Oriented Policing Services

       For activities authorized by Title I of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 
     (``the 1994 Act'') (including administrative costs), 
     $268,000,000, to remain available until expended, including 
     $45,000,000 which shall be derived from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund, of which $150,000,000 is for Public 
     Safety and Community Policing Grants pursuant to title I of 
     the 1994 Act to be used to combat violence in schools; and of 
     which $118,000,000 is for innovative community policing 
     programs, of which $25,000,000 shall be used for the Matching 
     Grant Program for Law Enforcement Armor Vests pursuant to 
     section 2501 of part Y of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''), as amended, 
     $17,500,000 shall be used to combat violence in schools, 
     $60,000,000 shall be used for grants, as authorized by 
     section 102(e) of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 
     1998, and section 4(b) of the National Child Protection Act 
     of 1993, as amended and $15,500,000 shall be used for a law 
     enforcement technology program: Provided, That of the 
     unobligated balances available in this program, $140,000,000 
     shall be used for innovative policing programs, of which 
     $35,000,000 shall be used for policing initiatives to combat 
     methamphetamine production and trafficking and to enhance 
     policing initiatives in drug ``hot spots'', $54,500,000 shall 
     be used for a law enforcement technology program, $25,000,000 
     shall be used for Police Corps education, training, and 
     service as set forth in sections 200101-200113 of the 1994 
     Act, and $25,500,000 shall be expended for program management 
     and administration.


         Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Maloney of Connecticut

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Maloney of Connecticut:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     JUSTICE--Office of Justice Programs--community oriented 
     policing services''--
       (1) after the third dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $500,000)''; and
       (2) after the fourth and eighth dollar amounts, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by 
thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano) for this opportunity to offer this 
amendment.
  In a year when we have seen very tragic events in a number of schools 
in our Nation, we have today the opportunity to build on the success of 
the relatively new Cops in Schools Program by approving an amendment to 
fund a clearinghouse administered by the Office of Community-Oriented 
Policing Services, COPS, to facilitate information-sharing between 
communities nationwide on existing school resource officer training 
programs and models of how to establish such a program locally.
  As many of my colleagues know, school resource officers are 
especially designated and trained law enforcement officers who are 
placed in schools to act as mediators, educators, and violence 
prevention and role models for students. Last year, we passed 
legislation to enable localities to hire school resource officers and 
form partnerships between law enforcement and education officials. This 
initiative was later expanded to become the Cops in Schools Grant 
Program under the COPS program of the Department of Justice. SROs 
represent a proactive approach to youth violence focusing on the 
prevention of juvenile crime rather than a reactive approach.
  Localities interested in establishing their own programs, however, 
may not know how to get started, and even more importantly, may not 
know how to thoroughly train SROs. My amendment would provide these 
communities with the information they need to bridge that information 
gap. The success of SRO programs depends most critically upon proper 
training of SROs and a community's access to information about training 
programs. A clearinghouse would provide an efficient, centralized way 
of offering communities this important information. A clearing house on 
SRO programs and training models will provide communities looking to 
address juvenile violence through community placing techniques a 
critically useful tool for establishing their own partnerships between 
law enforcement officials and educators.
  One final word. There has been some discussion, and I believe some 
misinformation about the funding in regard to this amendment. The 
amendment would transfer funds between the COPS general technologies 
initiative and the COPS hiring program. The amendment does not affect 
the funding for the law enforcement armored vest program of which I was 
a cosponsor of that legislation last year, or the innovative policing 
program. On page 33, we will note that there is $15,500,000 reserved 
for the enforcement technology program, and further on that page at 
line 15, there is a note that there is an unobligated balance of an 
additional $54,500,000 for the law enforcement technology program.
  In working this amendment with the Department of Justice, they assure 
me that number one, they support the amendment; and number two, that 
the $500,000 requested would not have an impact on the technology 
program.
  Finally, I understand that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
is supportive of helping me in this endeavor, and I am certainly 
willing to withdraw my amendment if the Chairman is willing to engage 
in a colloquy on the SRO clearinghouse.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky, 
would the gentleman agree that the national clearinghouse would provide 
an efficient centralized way of offering communities this very 
important information?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
efforts on this issue. I will work with the gentleman and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee to maintain this $500,000 for the School 
Resource Officers Clearinghouse in conference.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers). I want to do everything in my power to 
ensure that the funding for the clearinghouse is in the final bill. We 
will work with the gentleman to make that happen.
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank 
the gentlemen very much, the chairman and the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

[[Page H7204]]

                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blagojevich

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blagojevich:
       Page 33, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $7,500,000)''.

  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment earmarks an additional 
$7.5 million in unobligated balances available in the Community 
Oriented Policing Services, known as the COPS program. This money goes 
into the COPS account to expand community prosecution programs across 
our Nation.
  As these dollars are unobligated, this amendment does not take away 
funding from other law enforcement priorities within the bill, and 
there are no budget cap implications.
  As many of my colleagues know, community prosecution programs provide 
a holistic approach to fighting crime neighborhood by neighborhood, 
community by community. They represent the next step in community-based 
crime prevention programs.
  Just as police officers are assigned to a beat under community 
policing programs, community prosecutors work with neighborhood 
residents and police on the beat to identify and preempt crime. 
Community prosecutors are assigned full-time to locations such as 
police stations, and work together with police on the beat and 
community leaders to develop innovative approaches to crime.
  By being involved in the community and utilizing their legal skills, 
community prosecutors are playing a role in reducing crime rates. Under 
community prosecution, crime victims, especially vulnerable populations 
such as the elderly and children, have a locally-based prosecutor who 
they know. They establish bonds of trust, and as a result, both victims 
and witnesses of crimes are more likely to come forward in the effort 
to interdict crime and prosecute crime, and they do so by working in 
conjunction with law enforcement.
  Not surprisingly, and as a consequence of programs like this, 
community prosecution programs have been successful in over 40 
communities across our Nation in towns as small as Rosebud, Montana, 
and in cities as large as Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, 
Illinois.
  They are strongly supported by groups like the National District 
Attorneys Association, and I have a letter here from the president of 
that association, Steward van Mevern. Mr. Chairman, this letter urges 
us to increase funding for community prosecution programs. The problem, 
however, is despite the success of programs like this, they continue to 
struggle for resources.
  Last year, with the chairman's help, we were able to establish a $5 
million community prosecution grant program. Unfortunately, no funding 
is provided in this bill for the program, even though funding was 
requested.
  Hundreds of communities across our Nation have applied for the grant 
funding provided in fiscal year 1999, but there was not nearly enough 
funding to meet their needs. This situation will not improve without 
adoption of this amendment today. This amendment will provide a 
sheltered funding source to continue community prosecution programs and 
sustain and develop existing ones.
  This year I hope we can work together to build upon the success of 
community prosecution programs and meet the needs of our communities.
  With that, I thank the chairman for his tireless efforts on behalf of 
fighting crime in general, and this effort in particular. Let me also 
thank our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for 
his wonderful efforts and his world vision on these issues.
  Let me also thank staff members Sally Chadbourne and Jennifer Miller 
for their assistance. Let me also thank Pat Schlueter in general for 
the efforts she has done on behalf of these issues. In closing, I thank 
my own staff, Deanne Benos and Michael Axelrod, who also worked on 
this.
  Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. His 
amendment would maintain the program in fiscal year 2000, and I 
certainly have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, God bless the gentleman, and I thank 
him.
  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:


                       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, $267,597,000, 
     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 (title XIII of 
     H.R. 1501 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).

               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.


                    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.

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is very 
straightforward. It simply strikes section 103 from Title I, General 
Provisions, Department of Justice.
  In effect, what this amendment 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 Federal coverage for 
abortion services, women in prison have no money, nor do they have 
access to outside financial help, and they earn extremely low wages in 
prison jobs. In fact, inmates in Federal prisons are completely 
dependent upon the Bureau of Prisons for all of their needs, including 
food, shelter, clothing, and all aspects of their medical care.
  These women are not able to work at remunerative jobs that would 
enable them to pay for medical services, including abortion services. 
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 ranges from $200 to 
$400. Abortions after the 13th week cost $400 to $700, and abortions 
after the 16th week go up $100 more per week, ending at about $1,200 to 
$1,500 in the 24th week.
  Even if a woman in the Federal prison system earned the maximum wage 
on the general pay scale and worked for 40 hours a week, she would not 
have enough money to pay for an abortion in the first trimester if she 
so chose.

[[Page H7205]]

 After that, the cost of an abortion rises dramatically, and even if 
she saved her entire salary, she could not afford such an 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. Let me remind my colleagues 
that for the last 25 years in this country, women in America do have a 
constitutional right to abortion.
  In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that deliberate 
indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes an 
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the eighth 
amendment of the Constitution.
  With the absence of funding by the very institution prisoners depend 
on for health services, women prisoners are in fact coerced to carry 
unwanted pregnancies to term. The anti-choice movement in Congress 
denies coverage for abortion services to women in the military, women 
who work for the government, poor women, and women insured by the 
Federal Employees Health Benefit Plans.
  I disagree with all of these restrictions. I think they are wrong. 
But when Congress denies coverage for women who are incarcerated, then 
Congress is, in effect, denying these women their constitutional right 
to choose. That is barbaric and that is coercive.
  Let me just talk a minute about the kind of women who are entering 
prison. Most are victims of physical and sexual abuse. Two-thirds are 
incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. Many of them are HIV-
infected or have full-blown AIDS. Congress thinks that it is in the 
Nation's best interests to force motherhood on them?
  I, of course, support the right of women in prison to bring their 
pregnancies to term, but that is not what this is about. It is about 
forcing women who do not want to bring their pregnancies to term to 
have a child. It is downright cruel and foolish to force women in 
Federal prisons to bear a child in prison when that child is going to 
be taken from them at birth or shortly thereafter. It is cruel to force 
a woman who does not have the emotional will to go through her 
pregnancy with limited prenatal care, isolated from her family and 
friends, and knowing that the child will be taken from her at birth.
  What will happen to these children, these unwanted children who are 
born to prisoners? Will they be raised by relatives who do not care 
about them? Will they be sent to an agency? What will happen to them? 
This is one of the most cruel things I think that Congress can do to 
women who are incarcerated.
  In 1993, Congress did the right thing when it overturned this 
barbaric policy. I urge my colleagues to do the same today, and support 
the DeGette amendment. Let us stop these rollbacks on women's 
reproductive freedom.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision in the bill that this amendment seeks to 
strike, Mr. Chairman, 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.
  This is a longstanding provision, one that has been carried in 10 of 
the last 11 Commerce-Justice-State and Judiciary appropriation bills. 
The House has consistently rejected this amendment, this very amendment 
to last year's appropriations bill by a vote of 148 to 271; in fiscal 
year 1998, by 155 to 264; 2 years ago by a voice vote; and 3 years ago, 
by a vote of 146 to 281. It has been consistent, the House has, in 
rejecting this amendment.
  Time and again Congress has debated this issue of whether Federal tax 
dollars should pay for an abortion. The answer has been no. I urge a no 
vote again.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  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 engaged in criminal activity. That is a fact. 
But through our judicial system we certainly need to seek appropriate 
responses to illegal actions, and that is what we do. Women in prison 
are being punished for the crimes that they committed. They are doing 
their time.
  However, this is a separate issue which we are addressing today. 
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 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.

                              {time}  1800

  The ban is unconstitutional because freedom of choice is a right that 
has been protected under our Constitution for 25 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, physical and sexual abuse. To deny 
basic reproductive choice would only make worse the crisis faced by the 
women and the Federal prison system.
  The ban on the use of Federal funds is a deliberate attack by the 
antichoice movement to ultimately derail all reproductive options. As 
we begin chipping away basic reproductive services for women, I ask my 
colleagues, what is next? Dental of OB/GYN examinations and mammograms 
for women inmates? Who is next? Women in the military, women who work 
for the government or all women who are ensured 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.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the innate value of a baby is not diminished in any way 
simply because the child's mother happens to be an inmate. Children I 
believe are precious beyond words. The lives of their mothers, 
likewise, are of infinite value.
  Forcing taxpayers to subsidize the killing of an incarcerated woman's 
child makes pro-life Americans accomplices--complicit with violence 
against children. I do urge a strong ``no'' on the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have got to face the truth. Abortion methods 
are violence against children, the death penalty for an innocent little 
child. Abortion methods dismember children. It is commonplace for the 
abortionist to literally cut a baby to pieces.
  The previous speaker suggested that proscribing abortion funding 
might lead to the slippery slope of a denial of OB/GYN services or 
perhaps mammograms. That, frankly, is absurd. We are talking about 
something--abortion--that masquerades as somehow being health care when 
it actually is destructive. It kills babies.
  I do think the suggestion of a slippery slope in this case is an 
insult to those of us who fight for and believe very strongly in the 
importance of mammograms and expanding OB/GYN services. Again, the 
DeGette amendment sanctions subside for killing. Nothing healing or 
curative about that.
  Earlier in the debate I pointed out that abortion methods often 
dismember children. So let us focus on a moment on what abortion does. 
A high-powered suction machine, attached to a tube with a razor blade 
at the end is inserted into the womb, and the baby is literally hacked 
to pieces. That is the reality of a suction abortion. The suction 
device is some 20 to 30 times more powerful than a household vacuum 
cleaner. As the baby is cut up, the so-called ``contents of the 
uterus,'' the baby, are sucked into a bottle. That is outrageous and 
cruel. That is the killing of a baby. That is abortion.
  Another method of abortion is saline abortions. Babies slaughtered in 
this way have saltwater injected into their amniotic sac. The baby 
swallows the

[[Page H7206]]

caustic salt. An unborn baby swallows the amniotic fluid daily to 
develop the organs of respiration. In abortion, saltwater goes into the 
infant's lungs, and the baby is poisoned. This is a death penalty, and 
it takes about 2 hours for the child to die--a very slow and agonizing 
death for the child to die from this type of abortion.
  Of course the abortionist has all kinds of poisons at his or her 
disposal to destroy a baby. This is cruel and unusual punishment for a 
child who has committed no crime.
  It is especially ironic, Mr. Chairman, at a time when ultrasound is 
like a window to the womb, and we know so much about a developing 
unborn child. We can watch a child suck his or her thumb. We can 
diagnose conditions and take corrective action. But, no, the DeGette 
amendment would say we have got to pay for a baby's destruction for a 
child who has done no wrong.
  Mother Theresa at the National Prayer Breakfast a few years ago, with 
the President, the First Lady, the Vice President and his wife in 
attendance and many, diplomats and members of Congress told the 
gathering ``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. That is why it is the greatest destroyer of love 
and peace.''
  Then she said and admonished the President and all the diplomats and 
the Members of Congress assembled, ``Please do not kill the baby.''
  Mr. Chairman, the baby of an inmate is just as important as any other 
child on earth. Please don't kill the baby. Reject government funding 
of violence against children. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the DeGette amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that was offered by 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). Actually what the 
amendment does, it would reinstate the right to choose for women who 
are in prison.
  In 1976, the United States Supreme Court found that deliberate 
indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes an 
unnecessary infliction of pain, a violation of the Eighth Amendment to 
the Constitution.
  Most women are poor at their time of incarceration, and they do not 
earn any meaningful compensation from prison jobs. This ban closes off 
their access to receive such services and, therefore, denies them 
theirs rights under the Constitution.
  There has been a 75 percent increase in the amount of women 
incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prison facilities over the last 
decade, twice the increase of men. I am disappointed to note that, but 
that is the case.
  Most women in prison are young, have frequently been unemployed, and 
may have been victims of physical or sexual abuse. Additionally, the 
rate of AIDS or HIV infection is higher for women in prison than the 
rate of men. These women have the greatest need for full access to all 
health care options.
  Abortion is a legal health care option for women, and it has been for 
5 years. Because Federal prisoners are totally dependent on health care 
services provided by the Bureau of Prisons, the ban, in effect, 
prevents these women from seeking needed reproductive health care.
  This ban on Federal funds for women in prison is a direct assault to 
the right to choose.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeGette amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment. My 
colleagues are not surprised to hear me say this, because it is well 
known that I am pro-choice. But it might surprise some of my colleagues 
that I think there are too many abortions in this country. I work hard 
to support policies that prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the 
number of abortions in America.
  I believe that our approach should not be to make abortion less 
accessible or more difficult, but less necessary. If we agree, pro-
choice and pro-life, that our goals should be less abortion, then our 
focus must be on what we can do to further that goal.
  Together, we should increase access to contraception, work harder to 
educate people about responsibility if we want to make abortion less 
necessary.
  I will tell my colleagues what I do not believe. I do not believe 
that making abortion inaccessible is the answer. I do not believe that 
the way to end abortion is to make it so difficult or so dangerous that 
we endanger women.
  The right to access an abortion is the law of the land. I oppose 
banning access to abortion in Federal prison facilities for 
incarcerated women who need them. The prohibition in the bill does not 
make it impossible for women in prison to obtain an abortion, it just 
makes it more expensive, more difficult, less private, more dangerous.
  Imprisoned women with the money to pay for abortion can get transport 
to a facility outside the prison. So we are comfortable making it more 
difficult. We are comfortable making it more expensive. Mr. Chairman, 
that is wrong.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues towards a day when 
abortion is truly rare. Let us work together to do that. But as we work 
together, I will vote to make abortion truly accessible.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion to strike.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
DeGette amendment.
  Here we go again.
  Today marks the 127th vote on choice since the beginning of the 104th 
Congress.
  Each of these votes is documented in my choice report which can be 
found on my website.
  Access to abortion has been restricted bill by bill, vote by vote, 
and procedure by procedure.
  The DeGette amendment seeks to correct one of these attacks on 
American women.
  Federal prisoners must rely on the Bureau of Prisons for all of their 
health care, so, if this ban passes, it would prevent these women from 
seeking needed reproductive health care.
  Most women prisoners are victims of physical or sexual abuse.
  Most women, if pregnant in prison, became pregnant from rape or abuse 
before they entered prison.
  Most women prisoners are poor when they enter prison, and cannot rely 
on anyone for financial assistance.
  These women already face limited prenatal care, isolation from family 
and friends, a bleak future, and the certain loss of custody of the 
infant.
  The ban on abortion assistance for women in prison closes off their 
only opportunity to receive such care, it denies them their 
constitutional rights, but most importantly, it denies them their 
dignity.
  Current law tragically ignores these women.
  Perhaps more disturbing is that it also tragically ignores children 
born to women in prison. These children are taken from their mothers 
who cannot raise them in a stable family environment. What kind of life 
are we providing for them?
  Six percent of incarcerated women are pregnant when they enter 
prison. Recent news accounts have described cases of pregnant inmates 
being shackled during long hours of labor and delivery.
  It is unfair to rob women in prison of their basic fundamental right 
to choose abortion and also provide for unsafe deliveries and treatment 
while pregnant.
  Mr. Chairman, let's not intensify an already difficult situation, I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeGette amendment to 
strike the ban on abortion funding for women in Federal prison. This 
ban is cruel, unnecessary, and unwarranted.
  Mr. Chairman, a woman's sentence 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 extremely low wages 
from prison jobs. Inmates in general work 40 hours a week and earn 
between 12 to 40 cents per hour. They totally depend on the health 
services they receive from their institutions. Most female prisoners 
are unable to finance their own abortions, and, therefore, 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. In addition, they will almost 
certainly be forced to give up their children at birth. Why should we 
add to their anguish by denying them access to reproductive services?
  We ought to keep this debate in perspective. We are not talking about 
many women. Statistics show that in fiscal year 1997, of the 
approximately 8,000 women in Federal prison, only 16 had abortions, and 
there were only 75 births. So this is a small group of people, and

[[Page H7207]]

we should understand that as we continue this debate. The ban on 
abortions does not stop thousands of abortions from taking place; 
rather, it places an unconstitutional burden on a few women facing a 
difficult situation.
  Mr. Chairman, a prison sentence must not include forcing a women to 
carry a child to term.
  I know full well that the authors of this ban 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 (and the popular will 
of the American people who overwhelmingly support choice) they have 
instead targeted their restriction on women in prison--women in prison, 
who are perhaps the least likely to be able to object.
  Well watch out America. After they have denied reproductive health 
services to all women in prison, all Federal employees, all women in 
the armed forces, and all women on public assistance, then will once 
again try to ban all abortions in the United States. And they won't 
stop there. We know that many anti-choice forces want to eliminate 
contraceptives as well. It is a slippery slope that denies the 
realities 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.
  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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
will be postponed.
  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. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 2000, the Assistant Attorney General for the 
     Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice--
       (1) may make grants, or enter into cooperative agreements 
     and contracts, for the Office of Justice Programs and the 
     component organizations of that Office; and
       (2) shall have final authority over all grants, cooperative 
     agreements, and contracts made, or entered into, for the 
     Office of Justice Programs and the component organizations of 
     that Office.
       Sec. 109. Sections 115 and 127 of the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(b) of division A of Public Law 105-277) shall apply to 
     fiscal year 2000 and thereafter.
       Sec. 110. Hereafter, for payments of judgments against the 
     United States and compromise settlements of claims in suits 
     against the United States arising from the Financial 
     Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) 
     and its implementation, such sums as may be necessary, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the foregoing 
     authority is available solely for payment of judgments and 
     compromise settlements: Provided further, That payment of 
     litigation expenses is available under existing authority and 
     will continue to be made available as set forth in the 
     Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation and the Department of Justice, dated 
     October 2, 1998.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 38, line 10 to page 40, line 24 is as 
follows:

       Sec. 111. (a) For fiscal year 2000, whenever the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation (FBI) participates in a cooperative 
     project with a foreign country on a cost-sharing basis, any 
     funds received by the FBI from that foreign country to meet 
     that country's share of the project may be credited to any 
     appropriation or appropriations available to the FBI for the 
     purposes served by the project and shall remain available for 
     expenditure until the close of the fiscal year next following 
     the date of such receipt, as determined by the Director of 
     the FBI.
       (b) Funds credited pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     available for the following:
       (1) payments to contractors and other suppliers (including 
     the FBI and other participants acting as suppliers) for 
     necessary articles and services;
       (2) payments for--
       (A) one or more participants (other than the FBI) to share 
     with the FBI the cost of research and development, testing, 
     and evaluation, or joint production (including follow-on 
     support) of articles or services;
       (B) the FBI and another participant concurrently to produce 
     in the United States and the country of such other 
     participant an article or service jointly developed in a 
     cooperative project; or
       (C) the FBI to procure articles or services from another 
     participant in the cooperative project.
       (c) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate of any such amounts collected 
     and expended pursuant to this section.
       Sec. 112. Section 507 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding a new subsection (c) as follows:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of title 31, section 
     901, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration shall 
     be the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of 
     Justice.''.
       Sec. 113. Funds made available in this or any other Act 
     hereafter, for the United States Marshals Service may be used 
     to acquire subsistence and medical care for persons in the 
     custody of the United States Marshals Service at fair and 
     reasonable prices. Without specific authorization from the 
     Attorney General, the expenses incurred in the provision of 
     such care shall not exceed the costs and expenses charged in 
     the provision of similar health-care services paid pursuant 
     to Medicare and Medicaid.
       Sec. 114. Section 3024 of the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 106-31) shall apply for 
     fiscal year 2000.
       Sec. 115. Effective 30 days after enactment of this Act, 
     section 1930(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended in paragraph (1) by striking ``$130'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``$155''; section 589a of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended in subsection (b)(1) by striking 
     ``23.08 percent'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``27.42 
     percent''; and section 406(b) of Public Law 101-162 (103 
     Stat. 1016), as amended (28 U.S.C. 1931 note), is further 
     amended by striking ``30.76 percent'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``33.87 percent''.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                  Trade and Infrastructure Development

                            RELATED AGENCIES

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $25,205,000, of which $1,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                     International Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed 
     $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $44,495,000, to remain available until expended.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                   International Trade Administration


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports

[[Page H7208]]

     of United States firms, without regard to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 
     3703; full medical coverage for dependent members of 
     immediate families of employees stationed overseas and 
     employees temporarily posted overseas; travel and 
     transportation of employees of the United States and Foreign 
     Commercial Service between two points abroad, without regard 
     to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and aliens by 
     contract for services; rental of space abroad for periods not 
     exceeding ten years, and expenses of alteration, repair, or 
     improvement; purchase or construction of temporary 
     demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of 
     tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph 
     of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle; 
     obtain insurance on official motor vehicles; and rent tie 
     lines and teletype equipment, $298,236,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $3,000,000 is to be 
     derived from fees to be retained and used by the 
     International Trade Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     3302: Provided, That of the $300,236,000 provided for in 
     direct obligations (of which $295,236,000 is appropriated 
     from the General Fund, $3,000,000 is derived from fee 
     collections, and $2,000,000 is derived from unobligated 
     balances and deobligations from prior years), $49,609,000 
     shall be for Trade Development, $18,755,000 shall be for 
     Market Access and Compliance, $32,473,000 shall be for the 
     Import Administration, $186,693,000 shall be for the United 
     States and Foreign Commercial Service, and $12,706,000 shall 
     be for Executive Direction and Administration: Provided 
     further, That the provisions of the first sentence of section 
     105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 
     2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these activities without 
     regard to section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for 
     the purpose of this Act, contributions under the provisions 
     of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act shall 
     include payment for assessments for services provided as part 
     of these activities.

                         Export Administration


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment 
     of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first 
     paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with 
     special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without 
     regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law, 
     $49,527,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $1,877,000 shall be for inspections and other activities 
     related to national security: Provided, That the provisions 
     of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of section 
     108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying 
     out these activities: Provided further, That payments and 
     contributions collected and accepted for materials or 
     services provided as part of such activities may be retained 
     for use in covering the cost of such activities, and for 
     providing information to the public with respect to the 
     export administration and national security activities of the 
     Department of Commerce and other export control programs of 
     the United States and other governments: Provided further, 
     That no funds may be obligated or expended for processing 
     licenses for the export of satellites of United States origin 
     (including commercial satellites and satellite components) to 
     the People's Republic of China, unless, at least 15 days in 
     advance, the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate and other appropriate 
     Committees of the Congress are notified of such proposed 
     action.

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, 
     Public Law 89-136, as amended, and for trade adjustment 
     assistance, $364,379,000: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available under this heading 
     may be used directly or indirectly for attorneys' or 
     consultants' fees in connection with securing grants and 
     contracts made by the Economic Development Administration.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of administering the economic 
     development assistance programs as provided for by law, 
     $24,000,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to 
     monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public 
     Works Employment Act of 1976, as amended, title II of the 
     Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the Community Emergency 
     Drought Relief Act of 1977.

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     minority business development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     $27,000,000.

                Economic and Information Infrastructure

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, $48,490,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2001.

                          Bureau of the Census


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, $136,147,000.


                     periodic censuses and programs

       For necessary expenses to conduct the decennial census, 
     $4,476,253,000 to remain available until expended: of which 
     $20,240,000 is for Program Development and Management; of 
     which $194,623,000 is for Data Content and Products; of which 
     $3,449,952,000 is for Field Data Collection and Support 
     Systems; of which $43,663,000 is for Address List 
     Development; of which $477,379,000 is for Automated Data 
     Processing and Telecommunications Support; of which 
     $15,988,000 is for Testing and Evaluation; of which 
     $71,416,000 is for activities related to Puerto Rico, the 
     Virgin Islands and Pacific Areas; of which $199,492,000 is 
     for Marketing, Communications and Partnerships activities; 
     and of which $3,500,000 is for the Census Monitoring Board, 
     as authorized by section 210 of Public Law 105-119: Provided, 
     That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request, that includes designation of 
     the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement 
     as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics 
     for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law, 
     $142,320,000, to remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Page 47, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,753,253,000)''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is very 
straightforward. It eliminates that portion of the census which is not 
truly an emergency from this bill.
  Our Founding Fathers wrote in that we would have a numerical count of 
the population of this country every 10 years. We have, in fact, known 
that we were going to be required to have a census count in the year 
2000 in 1990. We knew it in 1980. We have known it since the country 
was founded.
  The application of an emergency designation for something that is 
well-known to need to occur is inappropriate in this case.
  Because I could not strike it purely as an emergency, my only option 
was to strike the amount. I want to give my colleagues the criteria for 
funding something as an emergency, and this is under the rules of the 
House.

                              {time}  1815

  ``It is necessary, essential or vital.'' Well, it meets that. ``It is 
sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over time.'' It 
definitely does not meet that. ``It is an urgent, pressing and 
compelling need requiring emergency action.'' It does not meet that. We 
have known that. ``It is unforeseen, unpredictable, and 
unanticipated.'' It does not meet that because we have known about this 
for a considerable amount of time. ``It is not permanent.'' Well, it 
meets that. This is a 1-year expenditure. But it does not qualify under 
these guidelines.
  Describing the census as unforeseen, unpredictable and unanticipated 
is difficult given the fact we have a 10-year census every 10 years. If 
the census was not an emergency last year, how can it be an emergency 
this year? Last year, Congress provided $1.8 billion to begin preparing 
for the year 2000 census.
  Now, we are going to hear, and the supporters of emergency spending 
will argue that we could not have anticipated the Supreme Court ruling 
requiring actual enumeration for the apportionment of seats in Congress 
but permitting the use of sampling for the distribution of Federal 
grants. With the

[[Page H7209]]

ruling, they argue that additional funds are needed to perform both 
sampling and enumeration. However, according to the Bureau of the 
Census permitting both enumeration and sampling will cost only $1.7 
billion more than their original request. That is nowhere near the $4.5 
billion in emergency funds provided by the House appropriation.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), has done a 
great job on this bill. With the exception of this designation, this is 
the best bill from this appropriations subcommittee that has come out 
since I have been a Member of Congress, and I want to say now that I 
appreciate very greatly the hard work the gentleman and his staff have 
done. But I cannot go home to Oklahoma and ask the people of my State 
to justify spending emergency funds off budget and potentially funds to 
come from the Social Security surplus for this count. We can and we 
must find the available funds within the existing government 
expenditures. That does not mean that efforts have not been made.
  What are the short-term effects of calling this an emergency 
designation? Right now, if we say we have a true surplus that is going 
to occur in the year 2000 of $14 billion, $9.25 billion of that are 
available for the Congress to spend. If we allocate some of that back 
to the people who paid it in, a mere $4.5 billion out of a $1.8 
trillion budget, what happens is we will have no money with which to 
fund the most important appropriation bills to come, that for our 
veterans and that for those that are most dependent upon us in our 
society.
  If Congress hopes to address the shortfalls in Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education funding, or assist American farmers, 
which is a very real likelihood that is coming to us in the near 
future, we will either have to eliminate giving back some of the people 
some of their money, which I believe is entirely possible given where 
we are, or steal money from Social Security.
  So that I would ask the Members of this body to support this 
amendment on two basic reasons: Number one, this is not an emergency. 
It does not meet the rules of the House under emergency. And, number 
two, it is more than likely going to come out of the Social Security 
fund, which every Member of this House has pledged and obligated 
themselves not to touch except for Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, with that I would make one final note that the other 
body did not declare funding for the census an emergency.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, let us be plain about this now, if this 
amendment passes, there will be no census. Pure and simple. If that is 
what the body wants, vote for this amendment. I cannot put it any 
plainer than that; the amendment would strike $2,753,253,000, which 
would strike at the heart of conducting the decennial census, which we 
are obligated by the Constitution to do.
  Now, why is this declared an emergency? Let us just lay it on the 
table. It is simple. The 1997 bipartisan budget agreement that the 
White House and the Congress, the House and Senate, agreed to, and most 
of us voted for, never anticipated a penny for the 2000 census. They 
should have. It was a bad mistake. Whoever was in the negotiations at 
that time should have known that in the year 2000 we would have this 
enormous expense, 1-year principally, of conducting the decennial 
census. This final figure, which is $6.5 billion, is two-and-a-half 
times the cost of the 1990 census. But the budget agreement anticipated 
not a penny, and no plans were made for it.
  Now, what are we to do? The budget resolution we passed earlier this 
year for the fiscal year 2000 again ignored the needs for the decennial 
census money in the year 2000. While the caps imposed in 1997 for this 
year and for 5 years made adjustment for other extraordinary items, 
such as U.N. arrears, they either exempted some of these items or 
accommodated them. That was not the case for the census. They simply 
ignored it. Nothing was done.
  Of course, everyone knows the census happens every 10 years. It is in 
the Constitution. Someone forgot to tell the White House and the 
Congress in 1997 that we would face this very moment, this year, in 
anticipating and finding the money to do the decennial census. It 
simply is not in the budget resolution. There is no way we could plan 
for it.
  And in just 2 short years, Mr. Chairman, the cost of the census has 
exploded by over 60 percent and likely will grow even more. Just last 
year the administration said the cost would be $3.9 billion. When they 
sent their original budget this year, that had grown to $4.9 billion. 
And then the Supreme Court came along and said their plan was illegal.
  And just 7 weeks ago, 7 weeks ago, after I had pleaded with them for 
2 years to give us the estimated cost for us to anticipate, which they 
refused and refused and refused, hearing after hearing; then finally 7 
weeks ago, they came in and said, okay, it is going to cost you $6.5 
billion; 60 percent more than they told us 2 years before, two-and-a-
half times the cost of the 1990 census. And 70 percent of that cost has 
to be funded this year in this bill.
  So here we are on the eve of the 2000 census, spending caps that did 
not allow for a census at all, skyrocketing costs that this committee 
and the Congress could not have expected, and only 7 weeks ago they 
give us the total figure. That is why it is an emergency. We have no 
choice. This is a temporary expense, a one-time cost, but it is vital, 
it is required, it is mandatory, and it is necessary that we do it. And 
that is what we do in this bill.
  This bill is a very restrained bill, as we have all agreed. We cut 
spending by $833 million below current spending. We have managed to 
keep critical functions in the bill, law enforcement, the INS, the 
weather service, our embassies overseas, at close to their operating 
levels. It has been a tough job. There were tough choices, but we have 
made them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if we really want to create a crisis, an 
emergency in everyone's definition, then we will support this amendment 
and force us to go back and cut the FBI, the DEA, the weather service, 
foreign embassies and the like 15 percent, which will practically shut 
down the courts.
  We have to find the money somewhere if we take this money out of the 
bill. I do not want to be responsible for that, and I would hope that 
the Members would not agree to take that money out.
  If we want to ensure that we meet our constitutional duty to provide 
for the census and maintain funding for these other critical agencies 
in this bill, I trust and hope that we will support the bill that is 
before us today and reject the amendment that would prohibit and 
preclude the conduct of the decennial census in the year 2000.
  Now, it has been said this is some sort of a gimmick. People on that 
side of the aisle have said this is some sort of a gimmick. Well, when 
the President set up his budget request earlier, Mr. Chairman, his 
budget request included $42 billion worth of budget gimmicks, user 
fees, and emergencies all through that budget request. We have rejected 
those.
  But many in this body, most in this body who voted for those budget 
caps in 1997, now are saying, ah, this is a gimmick to get around the 
budget caps, but you have to do the census and you have to maintain 
funding for the law enforcement agencies. My colleagues, we cannot have 
it all ways. We have to make a choice here. We have to choose. Do we 
want the census or not? That is the question.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I find 
myself in the very odd position of supporting very strongly the 
Republican leadership's position on the census. This amendment would 
cut $2.8 billion from census funding for fiscal year 2000. This 
amendment would make it impossible to conduct the census in 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, the census is mandated by the Constitution. It will be

[[Page H7210]]

the largest peacetime mobilization in the United States history. The 
Bureau has to open up 520 local census offices and hire 860,000 
employees in little more than 8 months. They cannot do it without 
funding, without the money. A cut in census funding will result in a 
census meltdown. The majority has repeatedly said that it would pay the 
full cost of the census, no matter what. It is time that they make good 
on this promise.
  This morning, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
pressed several Members to assure him that funding in the bill was 
sufficient to conduct the census. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller) referred to a promise made and a promise kept. Now the 
supporters of this amendment are talking about failing to keep the 
promise.
  What will be the effect? Without full funding, the quality of the 
census will suffer. With a cut of $2.8 billion, more than half of the 
year 2000 census cost, that means that shortly after the census gets 
started in April 2000 we will be back on the floor again pressing an 
emergency spending bill to keep the census going. Only then it will be 
an emergency and all of the destruction we normally associate with 
emergency spending bills will have happened.
  If the census shuts down in the middle of things, we will have the 
worst census in the 20th Century, and this Congress will bear the 
responsibility for that. If the census shuts down, 800,000 census 
takers will be laid off. If the census shuts down, the apportionment 
numbers will be damaged beyond repair and the census will be in the 
courts for the rest of the decade.
  Mr. Chairman, only once in the history of the census have we failed 
to reapportion the House. That was after the 1920 census, when Congress 
failed to carry out its duty not because the numbers were flawed but 
because they did not like what it showed. If this amendment passes, we 
will not have a census that can be used for apportionment or anything 
else.
  Mr. Chairman, we must defeat this amendment and prevent a large 
embarrassment of this institution. I strongly support the leadership on 
the Republican side and oppose the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things, I think. If we are 
talking about keeping commitments, everybody in this body committed not 
to spend Social Security money on anything but Social Security. That is 
what we are putting at risk.

                              {time}  1830

  Number two, where is the question about why it should cost $24 per 
person in this country to take the census when it cost $11 in 1990, 
which I find ridiculously high. There is no accountability for the 
numbers that have been put forward in the budget. There is no 
efficiency for it. Even if we pass this amendment, there will be money 
for the census. We will bring money back for the census.
  Our job as Members of this body is to pay for the things that the 
American public want and need. I agree we need to fund the census. I 
agree that we need to be honest with the American public about this not 
being an emergency and us not having to account for it.
  The real issue is do we have the courage to reduce the spending 
somewhere else to make the appropriate dollars for the census?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I too am a 
member of the Subcommittee on the Census. I serve with the gentleman 
from Florida and with the gentlewoman from New York. I believe that 
this census is a very important census. This committee has done very 
good work to put this census together.
  However, this is not an emergency. There are portions of this census, 
the $1.7 billion part of this census, that is arguably an emergency 
because of the court rules.
  However, I think that we could also make the argument that the Census 
Bureau dragged their feet and could have prepared for that. But we are 
not even going to argue the point.
  This amendment sets aside the $1.7 billion in unforeseen census 
expenditures. However, the other part to the census is $2.9 billion. We 
knew this was coming. We have known about this since 1790. When the 
Budget Act was passed in 1997, Members of Congress who were negotiating 
that deal knew it was on the horizon and intentionally did not include 
this in the budget because they thought they would kick it out to 
today, to this year.
  Well, my colleagues, we knew that this was coming. We knew that the 
census would have to be paid for. I agree with the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). We need to pay for this honestly.
  Just remember, if we do more emergency spending designations than the 
new on-budget surplus allows for, we are going into the Social Security 
surplus; we are going into the Social Security Trust Fund. My 
colleagues, we are getting very close to that moment.
  All of us voted for one budget resolution or another which stopped 
the raid on Social Security. We have to stay out of the Social Security 
Trust Fund in an honest way.
  We can make the argument that $1.7 billion was unforeseen emergency 
census spending, but not all of this money. $2.9 billion of this census 
is stuff that we knew was coming. We should have prepared for this. It 
is not a new emergency. We should pay for this.
  I like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for a 
wonderful bill. All things considered, there are things in this bill 
that I think are far better than previous bills that were brought to 
this Congress under appropriations bills. But this is not an emergency. 
This is something that we should be honest with the American people 
about. We should cut other spending to pay for this census.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the motivation that leads the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) to offer this amendment.
  It is ridiculous that this bill carries the $4.5 billion required to 
conduct the census as an emergency expenditure when the Constitution 
has told us since 1789 that we are going to have to be doing this every 
10 years. I mean, I have heard of advance notice in my time, but I 
think that is about the longest. So I understand how ridiculous it is.
  That is why I asked the Committee on Rules to allow me to offer an 
amendment which would strike the emergency designation.
  We just heard a speech in the well saying that this is not an 
emergency and so this amendment should pass. The problem with this 
amendment is that it does not do what the debate would seem to indicate 
it does, because the amendment does not strike the emergency 
designation. It strikes the money to run the census. And that is an 
irresponsible thing to do.
  I do not, for the life of me, understand why we should take seriously 
the claim that this is an emergency. But the way to deal with that if 
Members truly objected to the fact that it was an emergency was for 
Members to oppose the rule so that we could have gone back to the 
Committee on Rules and have gotten a rule that allowed us to strike the 
emergency designation.
  Having failed to do so, the House is now stuck with the choice of 
funding the census or not, and I believe it has no choice but to fund 
it.
  But I have to say that I, again, understand the frustration on the 
part of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), which I share. 
Because, unfortunately, we have no more rules around here when it comes 
to dealing with budget issues.
  Four years ago, the government was shut down by the majority party 
because they insisted that we follow only the spending rules of the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Now, this year, because a different process suits their political 
convenience, they will pick and choose. One day we have to abide by the 
CBO rules; and the next day, when it comes to directed scoring upon the 
Pentagon, we have to apply the OMB rules. And then when neither one of 
those agency's scorekeeping fits, then we consult the Wizard of Oz. 
Lord knows who we will consult next.
  It just seems to me that we have destroyed all semblance of order. 
And so,

[[Page H7211]]

when we play those kinds of budget games and when we declare something 
like the census to be an emergency, then it is no wonder that this 
institution has no credibility.
  Now, the argument the majority party makes is, well, we could not 
anticipate that we were going to have to run two different kinds of 
census because of the court decision. I understand that. That is why in 
committee we offered the amendment and why I tried to get the Committee 
on Rules to make in order on the floor an amendment which simply 
limited the emergency designation to the $1.7 billion that truly 
represented spending over and above the normal census.
  Yet, the Committee on Rules refused to allow that; and the House 
supinely went along with the decision of the Committee on Rules.
  So I am of a split mind on this amendment. I recognize the 
motivation. If this amendment eliminated the emergency designation, I 
would vote for it. But I do not think we can in good conscience 
eliminate funding that we know we have to provide. That is every bit as 
much a sham as the bill now before us.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman knows through our 
conversations that what my preference to do would be just to eliminate 
the emergency designation. However, the parliamentary rules prohibited 
both he or I from doing that very thing. I wanted to make that clear.
  My choice is not to eliminate the money but also to pay it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
consistent because the gentleman voted against the rule. Some of the 
other persons who spoke on this issue have not.
  I would simply say that, again, while I agree with the motivation of 
the gentleman, I believe the result would be every bit as phoney as the 
bill before us because it would be pretending that we could save $4.5 
billion which the Constitution requires us to spend.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
support the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, I did not.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I ask 
the him, did he vote for it?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, no, I did not. I led the opposition to it. I 
called it a public lie.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Coburn, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple more points.
  One of the questions that we have not spent time with is holding the 
administration accountable for why it should cost $24 to count for 
every man, woman, and child in this country.
  Now, think about that. The State of Oklahoma has 3 million people. 
What is 24 times three? It is $72 million to count the people in 
Oklahoma. Give me a break. Or give me that contract. I will leave 
Congress right now. Give me the contract. I will become a multi-
millionaire just from counting the people.
  The cost to count is abhorrent to anybody that is out there who knows 
anything about putting forth the process. We use this process not just 
to count but to employ a lot of people who otherwise would not have 
jobs. That is a social good. I do not disagree with that.
  But to have a $24-per-person cost in this country to count says we 
are much more inefficient. And that is an indication of the rest of our 
government which says we could surely find this $4.5 billion somewhere 
else.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting amendment, interesting in 
the sense that if there was one thing that both sides agreed on in this 
bill, it was the inclusion of the year 2000 census, fully funded.
  Now, let me explain that once again. There are people on this side 
who have very serious problems with this bill. There are also people on 
this side who are voting for this bill, like yours truly, specifically 
because the census was well taken care of.
  So if there is a unifying force at all within this bill and on this 
bill in this House, it is the census. Now, to single out the census as 
the one that is going to take this kind of a hit is first of all 
undoing any possibility of working at all towards a resolution of this 
bill in the future, a bill that has a veto threat hanging over it.
  Secondly, I have to join and echo the comments of the chairman. If 
they do not want a census, if they do not want to conduct a census, and 
if they think the Y2K issue is a problem, just wait to see what will 
happen if we do not have a census. If they do not want a census, then 
vote for this amendment. If they do not want a census, vote for this 
amendment.
  Now, I take it a step further. I continue to see this as part of a 
plan by some people to go after those items in the budget that are 
supposed to take care of some problems within certain communities.
  I know the census is for the whole Nation. But the fact is, if the 
prior decennial census had a problem, it was that it undercounted some 
people. We tried to address that by providing the proper dollars to 
make sure it works. So in my way of thinking, whether it is correct or 
not, this is as direct an attack on certain communities as not funding 
Legal Services Corporation was that we had to deal with before.
  But the bigger issue here, and it has to be repeated over and over 
again, is that the census was the one issue where we worked jointly, 
where we made agreements where we reached some conclusions. Now we 
stand forward here ready to deal with all of the other issues that have 
not been resolved in the hope that we can reach agreement, but going 
straight ahead with this proper census as should be taken, and now we 
have this amendment cutting this kind of money from it.
  Not to mention the fact, and I hate to deal with technicalities, but 
it has been called to my attention that if we look at the way these 
items are funded, this amendment talks about cutting the top amount, 
the overall amount; but it does not talk about where that is going to 
come from in the different frameworks. So if we leave the amendment 
this way, and I am sure the gentleman will correct that, and I should 
not be helping them on this, the breakouts will sum up to more than the 
amount that will be left to run the total census. And that is a 
problem.
  But, please, I would hope that on this one we could join together in 
a bipartisan fashion to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if we spend this 
money on an emergency basis that it will come out of Social Security 
funds.
  Let me remind the body that just today the majority whip said on the 
floor, and he is correct, this comes out of the on-budget surplus; it 
does not come out of Social Security.
  The emergency declaration that we have, the $4.5 billion that we are 
talking about on the census, comes out of the on-budget surplus, not 
out of Social Security.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from Kentucky 
knows, we may disagree on the emergency issue, but we certainly agree 
that the one place to come and attack with no reason other than just to 
attack would be the census. On that, we agree.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I would make two points with the gentleman. Number one is 
if we really were wanting to attack those communities that were 
underfunded, I would have included the

[[Page H7212]]

$1.7 billion that is there designed to do the statistical sampling. We 
did not do that. So I do not think it is fair to say that that is what 
we are targeting. It is also not fair to say that we do not want a 
census. What we are saying is we think it is not honest to the American 
public to declare something an emergency that is not and, number two, I 
would make the point that the $14.5 billion that is recommended to be 
on-budget surplus is made by cooking the books.
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, I think we have to be careful about 
the issue of cooking the books because we might have to throw the whole 
bill out the window. With that we have to be careful.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I would like to raise a point of 
clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Serrano was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. The $1.7 billion that was added was to do 
door-to-door enumeration, door-to-door count because of the lawsuit 
that was brought by this body. That is what the $1.7 billion is. 
Actually to use modern scientific methods would be less costly and 
would actually save money. But because of this requirement from the 
lawsuit brought by the Republican majority on the apportionment between 
the States, there must be a door-to-door count on redistricting and the 
distribution of Federal funds. The use of modern scientific methods can 
take place which is a more accurate count and one that is less costly. 
It is unfortunate that we had to add $1.7 billion in addition for a 
count door to door which all the scientific data tells us will be less 
accurate.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I rise today as a member of the subcommittee and also as chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Census here in Congress. I find myself very 
strongly disagreeing with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) who 
on fiscal issues we usually agree on so many issues. But the amendment 
by the gentleman from Oklahoma basically destroys the census and to me 
is an irresponsible amendment. It is irresponsible because it takes the 
money away without replacing it.
  As he says, we have to do a census. We have known since 1789 as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was saying, we are going to do a 
census. So we have got to provide the money.
  I was on the Committee on the Budget back in 1997. I remember the 
subject of the census being discussed on the Committee on the Budget 
and we unfortunately left the census out. That was a mistake. Really 
the mistake I think goes back to what was happening during the 1997 
budget deal because at that time we did not know what kind of a census 
was going to be conducted. So we do have a problem on the budget caps 
because it was not provided for, such a large amount.
  Now, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Census says that the 
$1.7 billion was because we are not using sampling. The problem was the 
Census Bureau tried to develop an illegal plan. It is against the law, 
I think it is also unconstitutional, but it is against the law. We 
wasted several years and I think tens and hundreds of millions of 
dollars preparing for an illegal plan and now we have to hustle to 
develop this plan. That is part of the problem of our cost factor.
  I think the chairman of our Subcommittee on Commerce Justice, State, 
and Judiciary did a very fine job. It was tough working with these 
numbers. As a fiscal conservative, everybody should be pleased that the 
amount of money, not counting census, for year 2000 is less than year 
1999. That is a huge accomplishment. What we are having to do with this 
census, $4.5 billion, is use off-budget surplus.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma says that we are going to have this 
Medicare problem and the farm problems and all. That is going to 
happen. That is a legitimate debate. But as of now we do have some 
surplus and we are going to use that surplus for this particular 
matter.
  This is a constitutional issue. We should not destroy the census. We 
have to go forward with the census. We are at a very critical point in 
the census right now. We are in the process of hiring hundreds of 
thousands of enumerators, and literally it does take hundreds of 
thousands of enumerators. This is the largest peacetime mobilization in 
American history that we are going to be conducting. We are going to 
have a $166 million advertising campaign and it is critical that the 
money is available on October 1 because that is the date that ad space 
is available. We need to make sure we make that available and we do not 
threaten the possibility of buying those types of ads. We need the 
Census Bureau to have their money.
  We have said for the past several years, money is not the issue, this 
is an issue of trust in our system of government. This is the DNA of 
our democracy, to say that we have to have a census the American people 
trust. We need to provide full support.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding. As he and many know, he and I have disagreed on matters of 
detail and substance with regard to the conduct of the census, and I 
think they have been legitimate disagreements, but what he says today 
goes to the core of what this democracy is all about. The importance of 
making sure that all of us get counted by the way that each of us 
believes is best to get that accomplished is what is at stake in this. 
If we pass this amendment, we will have no census and that would be a 
disaster of the largest proportions for this country. Its consequences 
would last for years. No amount of money would be able to make up for 
the policy blindness that it would produce. I associate myself with the 
gentleman's comments.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons it is more 
expensive this time around is we have a problem with something called a 
differential undercount. That is wrong. The differential undercount is 
that certain segments of our population are undercounted in a larger 
proportion than other segments of our population. We need to do 
everything we can to address that undercount problem. Homeless people 
are hard to count. American Indians are hard to count. We have a higher 
percentage of undercount with American Indians than anyone. We need to 
put additional resources in to get the best count we can, whether it is 
the homeless population or certain inner city populations or some rural 
populations. That is the reason we are putting the additional cost in 
there, because it is the right thing to do, to address that 
differential undercount. I think in a bipartisan fashion we are 
supporting this in providing the full resources to the Census Bureau at 
this time. I ask for the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to respond to something the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky just said. He claimed that this 
funding is occurring out of the surplus and that it is not coming out 
of Social Security. I want to correct that statement.
  Legislation brought to the House by the majority so far this summer 
would more than exhaust the $14 billion on-budget surplus projected by 
CBO for fiscal year 2000. First, the tax bill passed by the House cost 
$4.5 billion in fiscal year 2000. Second, the emergency designation for 
the entire cost of the 2000 census allows more than $4 billion of 
fiscal year 2000 outlays to occur without being counted against the 
committee's allocation or the budget caps that we are talking about. 
Even though those outlays, Mr. Chairman, will not count under the 
budget rules, they still will occur and they will eat into the surplus.
  Third, the majority has been instructing CBO to lower its outlay 
estimates for most of the appropriations bills that have been reported 
by the committee. Those scorekeeping plugs reduce outlays counted for 
the defense

[[Page H7213]]

 bill by $9.7 billion and for various domestic bills by at least $2 
billion. Doing so allows the bills to spend more than the allocations 
and caps would normally allow by an amount equal to the downward 
adjustment in the outlay estimates.
  That means that the three items that I have just listed more than 
consume the $14 billion in on-budget surplus projected by CBO for the 
year 2000. In fact, they would turn that $14 billion on-budget surplus 
into a deficit of at least $6 billion. Other past and future gimmicks 
raise that deficit even further.
  To make a long story short, under either the CBO or OMB forecasts if 
consistently applied, any projected on-budget surplus for fiscal year 
2000 is already gone due to actions taken by the Majority in their 
appropriations bills.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  I rise in support of this amendment. I do not generally agree with 
the gentleman from Oklahoma, but I think in this process he has shown a 
commitment to some of the integrity of what should be a process that is 
on the level with respect to the numbers.
  As pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin, clearly this money 
comes out of Social Security because the surplus the next fiscal year 
simply is not big enough to withstand the actions that have already 
been taken. It just stretches the credibility of every Member of 
Congress to go home to their district and to tell them that we believe 
that the census is an emergency and therefore it will not count against 
the caps that were set in 1997. Everybody in the country, I think, 
knows that those caps were unrealistic. But this is nothing more than a 
gimmick to get underneath those caps.
  Now, speaker after speaker has gotten up and told the gentleman that 
if he does this, there will be no census. Does anybody really believe 
that? That is not the case. It does not work that way around here. 
There will be a census and it will be funded. They have told him that 
it would destroy the census if we did this. Well, one easy way to fix 
this would be to give the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin unanimous consent to let them remove the emergency 
designation and then they can go on about their merry way and fund this 
out of the deficit like they plan to do. But they left the gentleman 
from Oklahoma no choice but to come here and strike the money. That was 
not his first choice, it was not the first choice of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, but that is where we are because of the Committee on Rules.
  So unless you want to go home and look like a fool and tell your 
constituents that you voted to believe that the census is an emergency, 
you are going to have to support the Coburn amendment. And then this 
Committee on Appropriations will have to respond to that. They will 
either remove the designation, at which point I think the gentleman 
from Oklahoma may be satisfied because we are back on kind of what 
looks like reality with the American people, or they will have to go 
back and remove the $1.7 billion or the $2.4 billion, whatever the 
figure is, that you can say is really an emergency. There are all kinds 
of options.
  This is not about doomsday, this is not about killing the census, 
this is not about destroying the census. It is about the credibility of 
the budget process, the credibility of the appropriations process, the 
credibility of the surplus, the credibility of Social Security, and 
also the credibility of each and every Member of this House when you go 
home for the August break and tell them you discovered an emergency 
called the census.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Let me just start by saying that I think the chairman of the 
subcommittee does a wonderful job with a very difficult task. I believe 
that the gentleman and the gentlewoman who have been handling the 
census issues have done well, also. I am not an expert on that. I 
really do not even want to discuss or debate that. I agree that it has 
to be done. I do agree with the gentleman from California who just 
spoke. My view is that if this amendment passes, within 3 hours the 
subcommittee will have met again and probably straightened out this 
problem in some way or another. I think it is fallacious to stand here 
and say that the census is not going to be done because this particular 
amendment does pass.
  But we are not here really to discuss that. In my judgment we are 
here to discuss the budgetary aspects of this and why are we declaring 
a census which has been called for since 1789 in this country to be an 
emergency. The bottom line answer is, it is not an emergency, it is not 
unforeseen, it is not unanticipated, it fails every definition of 
``emergency'' we have ever had here in the Congress of the United 
States.
  My judgment is that we just have to stop the rampant abuse that has 
been going on in recent years of calling everything an emergency to 
avoid the problems of the budget and to avoid the problems of the caps 
that we are all so familiar with here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. It is just not honest budgeting. It is just something 
which makes no sense back home.
  The argument was already made about some of the emergency spending, 
but just look at this. In 1999, we designated $34 billion as emergency 
spending here in the House of Representatives and in the Congress of 
the United States. If we look at the CBO numbers, and this argument has 
already been made, but CBO reported $14 billion in on-budget surplus 
for the year 2000. CBO says we might actually have a $3 billion deficit 
now.
  How did they get there? They count $3 billion of spending for 
administrative expenses for Social Security Administration, other 
spending on defense, nondefense and transportation discretionary 
spending which will be $14 billion higher than CBO assumed for 2000 in 
its current baseline.
  There is not, as has been suggested here, an on-budget surplus. What 
does that mean? That means again we are going to have to borrow from 
Social Security in order to fund this particular census situation, and 
indeed I think that is something that we simply do not want to do.
  What are we coming on to? I believe over in the Senate they are 
putting together about a $7 billion package for more emergency 
spending. Indeed, if this bill passes, we are going to have that much 
more emergency spending, all of which comes out of the overall money 
which is there.
  We have just done a tax cut here. We have had a lot of references to 
$996 billion over the next 10 years. Every time we spend one of these 
emergency spending bills, we take it away from that $996 billion in 
terms of determining where we are going to go. This is just not 
realistic budgeting. It is just not something that we should be doing 
in the Congress of the United States.
  We should face up to the people of the United States and say that we 
are spending the money properly and in order and in a way one can 
understand, or that we are breaking the caps, or we should reduce it as 
some would want to do.

                              {time}  1900

  That, in my judgment, is what we should do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I will yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, I believe, was on the 
Committee on the Budget, maybe still is.
  Mr. CASTLE. No, it is not true. Sorry.
  Mr. ROGERS. Do not be sorry for that.
  Does the gentleman agree, though, that the 1997 budget deal that was 
voted by this body ignored any expenditures for the 2000 census?
  Mr. CASTLE. I do not know the answer to that.
  Mr. ROGERS. Well, I can assure the gentleman that it did.
  Mr. CASTLE. I assume it did, or the gentleman from Kentucky would not 
be asking that question.
  Mr. ROGERS. And does the gentleman also admit that the current-year 
budget resolution that was passed by this body also did not anticipate 
a single penny being spent for the decennial census in 2000?
  Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, I assume that is also true. However I

[[Page H7214]]

will say that clearly both of those should have assumed this. These are 
matters which we knew were coming, and they should have been assumed in 
both of those particular projections. I do not know why they were not. 
To me that is an error.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman would continue to yield very briefly, 
when that happened, and the budget numbers were given to the full 
Committee on Appropriations, there was no money in that allocation for 
a budget, and so when my allocation was given to me on the Subcommittee 
from the full Committee, likewise there was no money allocated for the 
decennial census.
  Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. And so that is why I had no choice, and leadership in 
consultation agreed there was no choice here.
  Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, I do not agree at all with what the 
gentleman has just stated, and I do not think he is at fault in this at 
all. But I believe those who did those allocations, I believe the 
leadership in looking at this in overlooking this problem of dealing 
with this 3.5 billion to $4.5 billion made a serious error. I think 
that is where the problem is. We should correct it now. We should start 
by passing this amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Not a lot more that can be said other than perhaps to follow up on 
some of the comments, but what concerns me is that while it is 
absolutely correct, as has been pointed out by my colleague from 
California (Mr. Miller) that this is not an emergency, we get ourselves 
into a very perilous trap if we are not careful.
  Let us admit the census is not an emergency. For the last 230 some 
odd years we have not been conducting the census because it is an 
emergency. It is a constitutional requirement, and we must do it, and 
under the Constitution we are not told that we can do something 
halfway, part way, or by counting some but not all. We are supposed to 
try to do the best job we can with the resources we have and the 
technology to count everyone.
  The Census Bureau has told us it will cost a tremendous amount of 
money to count all of those people. Part of the reason it will cost so 
much is because we are doing both as best a job we can to actually 
count people, and we are using also the best techniques, the best 
systems available, the scientific methods available to us, to do the 
count.
  Hopefully then we will not have the 8 million or so people missed as 
we have had in the past. We will not have so many children in this 
country who do not count at all because they have been missed in our 
previous censuses; we will not have all the folks who happen to be a 
little more transient than others missed because they happen to have 
not been home or not had a home when the census was conducted, and we 
will not have this situation as in my State of California where about a 
billion dollars did not come back to the residents of that State 
because so many people were not counted in the 1990 census.
  But let us admit this is not an emergency. The census should not be 
designated as an emergency. This is creative accounting, what we see in 
this bill when we call the census an emergency.
  But to not fund the census adequately, fully, as necessary, as the 
Census Bureau has indicated, would lead us down that beaten path of any 
inaccurate census count which will cost us in money because there are 
many areas in this country that will lose out on funds that they 
deserve because the population is there to return the funds that those 
people paid through income taxes.
  We will lose out in political representation because by not counting 
all our people we will not designate for them their representatives in 
this same body that they are entitled to under the Constitution, and we 
will shame ourselves in the Constitution by not doing what we are 
supposed to as indicated by our Founding Fathers.
  So while this is not an emergency under the census to fund it, we 
will cause an emergency if we pass this amendment and not fund the 
census appropriately because we will cause ourselves a situation where 
we will find ourselves facing all sorts of lawsuits; we will find 
ourselves facing a situation where States will come crying because they 
deserve dollars that they did not get over the next 10 years; and we 
will find ourselves in the situation where again children, poor people, 
people who are migratory will say again they did not count because this 
Congress will not have included them in the census.
  That is not something we should do. We need to fund the census fully. 
Go ahead and call it whatever, we need to get the money there. We 
should not call it an emergency. It is a game. It is a deception to 
call this an emergency, but at the end of the day let us not shirk our 
responsibility. Let us fund the census.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, with regard to our proposed census, I have 
introduced H. Con. Res. 129, a sense of the Congress resolution calling 
on the Census Bureau to include all Americans residing overseas in the 
Census 2000, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has 
introduced a similar measure.
  Our Census Bureau currently provides an accounting of American 
military and government employees overseas, but fails to count private 
sector Americans residing outside the Continental United States. There 
are approximately 3 million Americans living abroad. They play a key 
role in promoting our U.S. exports and creating U.S.-based jobs, yet 
the Census Bureau chooses to ignore them.
  Moreover, as America increases its leadership role around the world, 
it is imperative that our census policy reflect the growing segment of 
our population, a segment that pays its taxes and votes in our Nation.
  The U.S. Census Bureau says it wants Census 2000 to be the most 
accurate census ever. I strongly support that commitment, and for that 
reason I believe the Census Bureau has a responsibility to count all 
Americans residing overseas, not just employees of our government.
  This problem was raised at the time of the last census, back in 1990, 
yet has still not been resolved. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I request 
my colleagues' support in calling upon the Census Bureau to properly 
count our Americans abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
sense of Congress of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and in 
support of the leadership and hard effort of the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his ranking member, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) on the 
subcommittee who included in the census language in the bill support 
for counting Americans abroad. All the major organizations that 
represent companies and individuals abroad, including Republicans 
abroad and Democrats abroad, all support counting our citizens abroad.
  The subcommittee held a hearing on this issue, and I was very 
impressed by the patriotic desire and efforts that Americans abroad 
have made to be counted. Dr. Prewitt, the head of the Census Bureau, 
testified that at this late time it was too late to accurately count 
them, but we should get ready for the next census.
  I have introduced legislation, the Census of Americans Abroad Act, 
and this calls upon the Census Bureau to conduct a count of Americans 
abroad as soon as it is practicable, as soon as it is possible.
  We all support the gentleman's sense of Congress, the language that 
was put in the bill and the efforts on both sides of the aisle to count 
Americans abroad.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
her supporting comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. There is very strong bipartisan support that 
overseas Americans should be counted. I mean overseas Americans, they 
vote, they pay taxes, but the Census Bureau refuses to count them, and 
that is just plain wrong. We count overseas military, we count overseas 
Federal employees, and there is no reason why we

[[Page H7215]]

cannot count this estimated 3 million people.
  Unfortunately, it is too late to really get it done in the next few 
months. It should have been planned years ago so they are geared up and 
ready for this. We need to do everything we can to be committed to get 
ready for the 2010 census. I know the people overseas would rather be 
counted next year, but it is wrong that they are not counted, and we 
need to do everything in a bipartisan fashion. We agree on this.
  So I commend the gentleman for introducing this.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Census.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman in his request. I 
just want to remind my colleagues that I have been trying to accomplish 
something which is easier to accomplish, and that is I have a concern 
that the 4 million American citizens who live in the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico are never included in any of the data that the census puts 
forth. This year Puerto Rico will be counted with the same form that is 
being used throughout the 50 States.
  What I am hopeful will come out of some conversations I am having 
with the chairman and with the chairman of the census subcommittee, is 
that when we look at figures concerning the 50 States that we take one 
step further and say this census is not only to count the people within 
the States, it is to count all American citizens. Because how ironic it 
is, Mr. Chairman, that there will be people in New York State, in my 
district, counted in this census who are not American citizens. Some 
will be counted, and it is fine with me, who are not legally in the 
country, and yet Puerto Ricans who live on the island, American 
citizens, will not be included in the census data products.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what I am trying to accomplish, and I hope that 
is part of this overall conversation.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the Coburn amendment, and I would say first off 
that I admire the job that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
others on the committee have done, and I think they literally have been 
between a rock and a hard place because a lot of the people making, 
frankly, the most noise today about the sanctity of the budget caps are 
the very people that have been crowding them on spending, and so I 
struggle with that.
  I would say as well, I mean it is just bizarre that in Washington, 
D.C. we can create a budget that does not include in it something that 
has been mandated for over 200 years, and yet he did find himself in 
that spot.
  I would say that most of all, though, I rise in support of this 
amendment because what this amendment is about is calling an ace an ace 
in Washington, and I think we have gone a long way from there. I mean 
this notion of emergency spending, as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) very correctly pointed out just a moment ago, needs to truly be 
an emergency, because if not, we go down a really slippery slope adding 
all kinds of things in that may or may not be an emergency.
  I remember with the emergency spending bill of last year we had, for 
instance, a Capitol Hill Visitor Center. As my colleagues know, the 
Capitol Hill Visitor Center has been the subject of debate for over 10 
years, and yet we called it an emergency.
  We had funding upgrades for embassies around the globe, and 
admittedly what happened in Africa was horrible. But to say that we 
suddenly found out about that at the last minute is not true. The Inman 
Commission had been out for over 10 years talking about the need for 
embassy upgrades in terms of security.
  So we have gone down a very slippery slope in calling nonemergencies 
emergencies, and the reason it is so timely that he offered this 
amendment now, because if we do not, then we get to VA-UD, and frankly 
we are going to have a lot of other things added as, quote, 
``emergencies.''
  And if my colleagues look at the numbers, we have gone $62 billion 
over the caps since the budget deal was signed in 1997. We simply leave 
more room for that if we go down this emergency route.
  Second, I would point out I think that this amendment is fairly 
modest. I was going to offer an amendment. As my colleagues know, this 
amendment goes after the 2.8. I was going to offer one that as well 
went after the 1.7 and had an across-the-board cut in the rest of the 
1.7. So from my perspective, this is modest because he leaves it in 
place; and as the gentleman from California earlier pointed out, this 
is not about ending the census, because as we all know, Washington is a 
place from which we would find a way to find the money for the census.
  Finally, I would say what this is about is about basically the three 
monkeys:
  Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

                              {time}  1915

  We cannot pretend to look very narrowly on the budget that is before 
us and pretend that things are not happening in the Senate, because, as 
we know, they have marked up a bill that has billions of dollars of 
farm emergency spending in it that is going to put us over the caps, 
and, in fact, when you look at the assumptions behind the budget, what 
you would say is it is going to be very, very difficult for us to 
really stay within our promise of not reaching into Social Security, 
because what the assumptions suggest is, one, we will stay at a 
peacetime high in terms of what the government takes from economy, and, 
two, we will have a frontal lobotomy in Washington and drastically 
reduce spending from 19 percent of GDP to 16 percent of GDP.
  Mr. Chairman, I would add only that this amendment is supported by 
Citizens Against Government Waste.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I take to the floor in support of the Coburn amendment 
and commend the gentleman for his fiscal honesty, and I appreciate the 
support that others have shown for it. The census obviously is 
important, but it is also important that we bring some honesty to the 
budget process.
  This morning I spoke against the rule and made the statement that we 
are already spending Social Security trust funds, and asked if anyone 
disagreed with me, to please confront me. There were Members here who 
could have, but chose not to. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
the majority whip, was on the floor and chose to confront me after I 
left the floor. In doing so, he made some allegations that I want to 
set the record straight on.
  He said the Blue Dog budget had a tax increase, not a tax decrease. 
That is simply false, and he knows it.
  He said it is okay to declare census spending an emergency, because 
the 1997 budget agreement did not provide money for the census. I find 
it hard to believe that my colleague from Texas was actually suggesting 
that because Congress made a mistake and forgot about the census when 
we passed the 1997 budget agreement, we have to declare an emergency 
and leave the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
  I would also point out that the Blue Dog budgets that we offered in 
1995, 1996 and 1997 all budgeted money for the census, supported by a 
majority of Democrats on each instance. If the Republican leadership 
had paid more attention to the Blue Dog budgets back then, perhaps we 
would not have this problem today.
  Another statement the majority whip made this morning is that the 
spending in all of the appropriation bills for next year is being cut. 
Saying that the appropriation bills are cutting spending below last 
year's level relies on an awful lot of creative accounting, directed 
scorekeeping, where we tell the Congressional Budget Office how to 
score bills to make it look like we are spending less. Oh, how my 
colleague from Texas used to lambast us Democrats when he accused us of 
doing what they are now doing.
  If we let CBO score all the appropriation bills honestly, they would 
tell us that the appropriation bills we have passed already spend $15 
billion to $18 billion more than the leadership would like us to 
believe. That is in this book right here for anyone that wants to

[[Page H7216]]

read it, phony offsets, emergency spending, taking spending off budget, 
all of these things we should not be doing.
  On page 6 of the Congressional Budget Office July budget outlook that 
is being cited as projecting surpluses outside of Social Security, they 
wrote,

       That was before the Republican leadership decided to abuse 
     the emergency designation to increase spending above the caps 
     even further. When we take into account these additional 
     gimmicks, total discretionary spending will be at least $25 
     billion higher than the Republican leadership is claiming.

  Now, my opposition for the rule this morning was let us be honest. 
Let us be honest. Spending is spending, no matter what we call it, 
where we put it on the ledger or how we try to hide it. Let us be 
honest with the American people about how much we are spending, and not 
rely on accounting gimmicks and stand on the floor and accuse our 
colleagues of not telling the truth.
  Again, to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), I would challenge the 
gentleman to come back to the floor and make the same statements and 
read this in this report, because what I am saying is coming from CBO, 
not Charlie Stenholm.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says the tax cut has nothing to 
do with Social Security surpluses. The claim that we have a surplus 
outside of Social Security to use for tax cuts depends on all these 
budget gimmicks. There is no surplus outside of Social Security next 
year to be used for tax cuts or any other purpose when we add up the 
numbers honestly. In fact, we will have a deficit of at least $3 
billion next year when Social Security is excluded.
  In other words, we have already spent $3 billion of the Social 
Security surplus, and all of the tax cut next year will come out of 
Social Security surpluses.
  One does not have to take my word for it. Again, just ask the 
Congressional Budget Office. Any spending above the caps, whether it is 
emergency or non-emergency, and I am prepared to make legitimate 
emergency decisions based on spending needs that handle emergencies. I 
am prepared to do that.
  But, now, let us start shooting straight with the American people. If 
we are going to break the caps, let us tell them. If we are going to 
increase spending, let us tell them. If we are going to spend Social 
Security dollars, let us tell them. If we are going to give a tax cut 
from fictitious surpluses, let us tell them.
  Let us support the Coburn amendment. Let us go back to the drawing 
board, and let us deal honestly with our budget while we still have a 
chance to work bipartisanly on some very difficult matters.


                preferential motion offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 249, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 371]

                               AYES--166

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--249

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Boehner
     Burr
     Diaz-Balart
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Lantos
     McCrery
     McDermott
     Oxley
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes
     Sawyer
     Shuster
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. SHOWS and Mr. PHELPS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SMITH of Washington, ROTHMAN, DICKS, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the body about the schedule for the 
balance of the evening.
  Mr. Chairman, so that Members will have some general guidance about 
the balance of the evening, let me attempt to generalize about the 
schedule. And if any of the leadership finds me speaking the wrong way, 
they can interrupt me.
  But as I understand it, this is the way we intend to proceed: I would 
hope, as soon as we get back to the Coburn amendment, that we could get

[[Page H7217]]

a unanimous consent to limit the debate to 30 minute, 15 per side. We 
will do that appropriately at the right time. At which point, if that 
is agreed, we would then proceed to the three votes that are stacked 
up, including Coburn; in which case, at the conclusion of those three 
votes, my understanding is the Committee would rise and take up the 
Emergency Steel, Oil, and Gas Loan Guarantee Act conference report. 
Following that, I do not know.
  But at least I think we can have some period of time after these 
three votes that Members would have, while the conference report is 
being debated, for perhaps some private time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the Coburn 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes, and that the 
time be equally divided between the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have only one remaining speaker. I 
reserve the balance of the time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I do not agree with his 
amendment, but I think he is doing something that is very important.
  I would like to talk about the emperor. The emperor, of course, are 
the spending caps. This emperor is so sacrosanct and is wearing this 
beautiful gown. We will never, ever take the gown off the emperor.
  Of course, we may do a little bit in defense spending where we have 
an emergency bill that doubles the amount that the President asks for. 
We may do a little bit in highway spending. Now we are doing a little 
bit in census spending. Mr. Chairman, the emperor has no clothes.
  We are sitting here with a budget and spending caps that we are 
busting over and over and over again, and nobody wants to say it on the 
Republican side except for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). 
But the emperor has no clothes. We are letting him walk down the street 
bare naked because no one is willing to say we have to make some 
adjustments.
  The reason I do not agree with this amendment is because we have to 
have the census. The Constitution says we have to have the census. It 
is not a surprise. It is not something that was snuck into the 
Constitution in the middle of the night where, all of a sudden, we go, 
oh, my God, we have got to do a census this year. We know it has got to 
be there. But what has happened is this process has been so distorted 
by the majority side that this is the only mechanism left.
  If they want to continue this charade, the charade of saying that 
this is an emergency, then that is what it is going to have to be. But 
the American people should know that this is a charade.
  We have to have the census, but the only opportunity we have been 
given tonight to have the constitutionally mandated census is to do it 
through emergency spending. If that is what we are going to do, then we 
have to get it done.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
the generous grant of time to discuss this important amendment.
  I come to the debate equipped with two reference sources, the first 
being Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. ``Emergency: an unforeseen 
combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for 
immediate action.''
  Now, it is plausible to believe that we cannot anticipate everything 
in the budget and that emergencies do happen beyond our control, and we 
should figure out a way of dealing with them.
  The question is, is the census, is the dicentennial enumeration of 
the people of the United States an unanticipated emergency that could 
not be foreseen? Well, Thomas Jefferson 210 years ago could have told 
Congress that in the year 2000 they were going to need money for the 
census because it was required that it be done every 10 years as long 
as the Nation should stand, and the Nation still stands.
  So this is by no means an emergency in terms of unanticipated budget 
needs. Budget gimmicks were not quite enough. The rosy scenario, 
assuming that things would continue as well as they had for the last 10 
years, for the next 10, that was not quite enough.
  The quiet proposal and winking and nodding about real cuts of 30 
percent in all domestic spending, even that was not quite enough to get 
to the point where we could have tax cuts and not declare emergencies 
to make room for the tax cuts. That is what this is all about.
  Social Security is going to be hit and hit and hit and hit again with 
so-called emergency spending which does not count. We are taking the 
money. We are spending it. We are replacing it with IOUs in the Social 
Security Trust Fund. We are ripping the lock off the lockbox, but it 
does not count.
  Do not pay any attention. Look the other way. It is not an emergency. 
This is not an emergency. This is spending the Social Security trust 
funds for the census, something that could have been anticipated.
  We should support the gentleman's amendment. Get honest about this 
budget.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of 
discussion obviously on this issue. But the reality is that I agree 
with those who say the budgeting process has become convoluted. It has 
even gotten a little bit dirty.
  But this amendment reminds me of the instance where one throws the 
baby out with the bath water. The baby is the census in this case. 
While we need to clean up the process, we do not need to do it at the 
expense of the census. We need the census money. I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the analogy of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) 
is very apropos. Being somebody who delivered two babies this weekend, 
both of them over 9 pounds, sometimes when one has got a baby and one 
is going to give it a bath, the first thing one has got to do is get 
the baby out of the mama's tummy to give the bath to it. Sometimes they 
do not always come out right. Sometimes one takes a pair of forceps, 
salad tongs, and gets that baby out of there.
  I am trying to get the emergency baby out of this bill. I would 
appreciate anybody's vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma for yielding me this time, and I want to rise in support of 
his amendment.
  There is no doubt that the census is not an emergency. If my 
colleagues believe in the integrity of the budget process and if my 
colleagues believe in the integrity of the lockbox, if my colleagues 
believe that we should spend Social Security taxes only on Social 
Security, then my colleagues, too, have to support this amendment.
  Procedurally, this is the only way for us to deal with this issue. If 
we pass the Coburn amendment, we can send this bill to the Senate 
without a provision for the census. We can then pass the motion to 
instruct the conferees to accede to the Senate position, which would be 
to not declare the census an emergency.

                              {time}  2000

  There will be a census. Everybody in this chamber knows this. 
Everybody in America knows there will be a census when we get done. The 
reason that this has been declared an emergency is so that we can 
exceed the spending caps in the balanced budget agreement of 1997.
  I think the gentleman from Texas, when he attacked the whip, was 
talking about truth and honesty in budgeting. I would agree that it is 
not honest budgeting to declare this census an emergency, but I can 
tell my colleagues this, too, it is hard to find a lot

[[Page H7218]]

of honesty in the budget process on this floor tonight.
  It reminds me that politics in Washington is often referred to like 
the politics in the Middle East where there are three positions on 
every issue; there is an official position, a public position, and then 
there is the real position. Folks are coming down to this floor every 
day on the appropriations process arguing they want to save Social 
Security first, first things first, they will say, and then they will 
argue that every single appropriation bill is underfunded.
  Now, many of those same people voted for the balanced budget 
agreement with the President in 1997. They congratulated themselves, 
they congratulated the President, and they said they were finally 
exercising fiscal discipline. Well let me tell my colleagues what the 
fiscal discipline of that was. First of all, it increased spending by 
almost $60 billion in the first 2 fiscal years, and since then we have 
spent almost $62 billion in emergency spending, $122 billion over the 
baseline amount in 2 years.
  What it said is we would put off the tough choices to the year 2000. 
Well, guess what, here we are at the year 2000 budget and nobody here 
seems to have the ability to stand up for their principles. No one on 
this floor tonight has questioned the most important element here, and 
that is why is this census costing so much? Congress and the President 
cannot agree on how to do the census, so what have we done? We have 
said we will fund two censuses. We will do not one, we will do two, the 
President's way and the Congress' way.
  If my colleagues believed that they were exercising fiscal discipline 
and voted for the balanced budget agreement in 1997, then they have to 
vote for this Coburn amendment. If my colleagues voted for the lockbox 
and they meant it when they said that they wanted to set Social 
Security aside for Social Security, then they have to vote for this 
Coburn amendment. If my colleagues voted for tax relief and they 
believed and they meant that they could fund that tax relief by not 
tapping into the Social Security account, then they have to vote for 
the Coburn amendment, too.
  We need to vote for this Coburn amendment. It is the only way to 
restore integrity.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, what time is remaining on each side and 
who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has 10 
minutes remaining and has the right to close, and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, we are 250 days away from the 
census and, as my good friend on the other side of the aisle, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has pointed out, this is 
constitutionally mandated. We have to have a census. Whether we call it 
an offset or an emergency, every person in America needs to be counted.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts of the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) to fund the census at $4.5 billion, the requested amount 
from the administration, and I urge a very strong no vote on the Coburn 
amendment. The Coburn amendment would make it impossible to get a count 
in the census; it would create the worst census since we began counting 
over 200 years ago. I urge a very strong no vote.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Census, in the spirit of bipartisanship 
and in friendship on this.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, especially 
those on my side of the aisle, to oppose this amendment.
  As I said earlier, this is an irresponsible amendment because it 
takes $2.8 billion out of the census and does not replace it. We have 
to pay for the census. We do not have a choice. It is a constitutional 
requirement, and we have said all along we were going to do the best 
census possible and address the problems that have existed in the past 
censuses.
  I served on the Committee on the Budget back in 1997, and that is 
where the problem started, with the budget agreement, which I 
supported. Reflecting back on it, we never provided any money as part 
of that. We forgot. We did not intentionally exclude the census 
funding. But that is $4.5 billion. And in this year's budget it was not 
included.
  Now, I will admit my mistake. There were mistakes made in putting 
that budget together, but we have to provide it. That is the reason it 
is going to become an emergency. I wish it was not an emergency. 
Ideally it would not be.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me.
  I am enlightened here. Apparently I now understand the nature of the 
emergency. We forgot. This is a very handy thing. From now on whenever 
we are supposed to have done something and we do not do it, we do not 
say I forgot, we say, I am sorry, it is an emergency.
  Because the gentleman said the problem is that in 1997, when some of 
my colleagues voted for what I think was a pretty stupid agreement, 
they forgot there was going to be a census. Now, I do not know who 
withheld this information from those individuals, but now we have an 
explanation of an emergency. They forgot.
  I plan to use this. When they say to me, where is that thing the 
gentleman is supposed to have, I will say, I am sorry, it is an 
emergency. If they ask somebody on their staff if they wrote the memo 
that they wanted them to write, they can say, no, it is an emergency. 
So we now have invented the handiest excuse in human history.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, tonight I am arguing against the amendment 
of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I think it is wrong. We 
are arguing again about how to fund the census, debating a 
constitutionally-based census that we carry out every 10 years.
  The consequences of failing to do this are real frightening. What 
does this do to Mississippi? Ten years ago we undercounted 55,000 
people. This year we have a real likelihood of losing a seat in 
Congress because we did not adequately fund it 10 years ago. We do not 
need to underfund the census today. It is a crime; it is a shame. My 
people in Mississippi need as much representation as anybody else in 
this country.
  Mr. Chairman, the census affects us in our highway planning, 
construction, public transportation, educational block grants, and 
everything else. Our credibility is at stake. The credibility of this 
chamber and the integrity of a census that sets the agenda for this 
Nation for the next 10 years.
  Let us do the right thing, let us make sure all Americans are counted 
and that our democracy is operating on the foundation where all 
Americans are counted for and representation is shared equally and our 
dollars are spent wisely.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There is an issue that is before us that really does not have 
anything to do with the census. There is an issue before us that does 
not have anything to do with the budget. The issue that is before us is 
dare we pull the wool over the American people's eyes about calling 
something an emergency when it is not.
  We have heard several people say we are not going to have a census if 
this amendment comes through. Everybody knows we are going to have a 
census. What they are really saying, when they are saying that, is they 
do not want to do the hard work to find the real money to pay for this 
and not take it from the Social Security fund. That is what the real 
answer is. That is not what is said, but that is what is intended. We 
all know that because we all know if this amendment passes the 
Committee on Appropriations is going to have to find the money for the 
census.
  I know that we can explain a lot of things back home, but I think it 
is a

[[Page H7219]]

real stretch for us to be so arrogant to say we can go home, as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, and say we just forgot, 
therefore, it is an emergency. This is not an emergency. What will be 
an emergency is if we spend and break our word with regard to the 
Social Security surplus.
  There were two people in this body who voted for the President's 
budget to raise taxes and raise spending. Two people. Everybody else in 
this body voted against that budget. Everybody else voted for one of 
two budgets that said we will not, under any circumstances, touch 
Social Security money. So it is really an issue about whether or not we 
are going to be truthful with the American public.
  It is not truthful to say there will not be a census if this 
amendment passes because we all know there will be. It is not truthful 
to tell the American public that it is an emergency to fund a census 
because somebody forgot. They did not forget. They did not put it in, 
including from the Committee on the Budget. I know this from having a 
conversation with the chairman, because they were hoping to force a 
decrease in spending so they did not elicit it. So nobody really 
forgot.
  We can do what we need to do. We can take care of every American that 
is dependent on us; we can have an accurate census; we just need to do 
it more efficiently. We need to remeasure the programs that we are 
passing money for. Are they effective, are they doing it the most 
efficient way? Our problem this year is we are refusing to do the steps 
that will help us become efficient in our government as we are in every 
other aspect of our society.
  The Senate is talking about, and we will be discussing as well, 
emergency spending for the farmers, the most efficient farmers in the 
world. We cannot ask them to cut their costs any more. They are already 
the cheapest in the world by far. Let them be an example to us. Let us 
make every program that the Federal Government runs as efficient as the 
farmers are in this country. If we do that, we will have $100 billion 
with which to fund the census and everything else we need.
  I want my colleagues to check their hearts and ask themselves if they 
can go home and tell the people in their districts that this census is 
an emergency; that they had to spend their constituents' Social 
Security money and their grandchildren are just going to have to pay a 
little bit more to fund the Social Security system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  One of the comments that we keep hearing from everyone on that side 
who gets up to put forth a deep cut is, do not worry about this cut, 
what it is that I am cutting will get done. So we will cut one bill, 
then people will say, do not worry about it, Defense will be taken care 
of. Then they will cut another bill and say, do not worry about it, 
everything in Energy and Water will be taken care of. Now today they 
are saying, we will cut the census but, do not worry, the census will 
be taken care of. And I suspect some time in the fall they will cut 
education and health care and health services to shreds and they will 
say, do not worry about it, people will be taken care of.
  This may come as a shock, but sooner or later, if we keep on cutting, 
something is really not going to happen. Something is not going to go 
well. And the reason that we are opposing this amendment today is 
because we know for a fact that the census can run into serious 
problems if we approve this amendment.
  Now, I also personally would like to help the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Coburn). He told us with such pride and joy, and he should tell us 
with pride and joy, that just this weekend he delivered two babies. 
Well, his amendment runs the risk of not counting those babies in the 
census. I do not want him to go through life delivering babies that 
will not be counted in the census.
  Let me just end with this thought, which is the same one I brought up 
before. I think it is important for everyone to understand that the 
census was the only issue in this bill on which there was full 
agreement. Let me repeat that again. The census item was the only part 
of this bill on which there was full agreement. People like myself, who 
are voting for final passage of this bill, are doing it not because I 
support the cuts we made, they are doing it mainly because it funded 
fully the census.

                              {time}  2015

  So now to break the only agreement we had by destroying the census 
means that whatever support there is for this bill we lose, whatever 
hope there is that we could move ahead to come up with a better bill in 
general terms we lose, that any possibility we have to get this project 
on the way we lose.
  There are things that have to be dealt with right away. When the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and when the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) get up and tell us the importance of this item and 
when the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) tells us the 
importance of this item, they are not saying that just to hear 
themselves speak or to appear on TV. They know how difficult it was to 
reach this point.
  How many of my colleagues have forgotten that we held up budgets in 
the past because of the census issue? So if we are here, we are with an 
agreement at least on this item, why even consider voting for the 
Coburn amendment?
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that everyone in this House joins in a 
bipartisan basis to defeat this amendment. This is the worst amendment 
from a gentleman who is famous for his amendments, but this is without 
a doubt the worst amendment he has brought to the floor. If this should 
pass, even he would regret it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott); the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette); and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 263, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 372]

                               AYES--164

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon

[[Page H7220]]


     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--263

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bilbray
     Brady (TX)
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2038

  Messrs. DEUTSCH, DOOLEY of California, PALLONE, CONDIT, HULSHOF, 
SPRATT, and MATSUI, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, and Messrs. DICKS, LUCAS 
of Kentucky, CRAMER and Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HINCHEY and Mr. GILCHREST changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 268, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 373]

                               AYES--160

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kuykendall
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--268

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo

[[Page H7221]]


     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bilbray
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2046

  Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Coburn

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5 -minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 257, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 374]

                               AYES--171

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nussle
     Olver
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Wu

                               NOES--257

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bilbray
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2055

  Mr. VISCLOSKY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FORD, Mrs. CAPPS and Mr. TIERNEY changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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. 
LaHood) 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. 
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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________