[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H7367-H7384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address to the chairman, as a father of two 
young daughters, on June 7 of this year, Mr. Chairman, the House 
overwhelmingly passed my bill, H.R. 1915, known as Jennifer's Law.
  The bill was inspired by the disappearance in 1993 of a young Long 
Island woman named Jennifer Wilmer, who is still missing.
  The bill would provide $2 million for grants to States to collect and 
input information on unidentified victims in a national database to 
assist in the location of missing persons, providing law enforcement 
officials with the tools to identify missing persons reported as 
unidentified and so as to close many unsolved cases.
  I am wondering if I could ask the distinguished chairman of the 
committee if he would provide assistance in ensuring that we can fund 
this important program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Lazio) on his leadership on this issue.
  I understand that the bill has a very good chance of being signed 
into law this year. My bill provides $60 million for grants authorized 
by the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 for grants to 
upgrade information and ID technologies.
  I believe that the authorizing legislation would include information 
systems like Jennifer's Law when enacted that would be covered by this 
grant program.
  I would be happy to continue to work with the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Lazio) on this issue.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
just want to thank the chairman for his pledge to collaborate. Based on 
his legislative skills and his reputation, I think we can take that to 
the bank.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Dingell

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. (a)(1) None of the funds provided under this Act 
     for grants authorized by section 102(e) of the Crime 
     Identification Technology Act of 1998 in the item relating to 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Community Oriented Policing 
     Services'' may be used to provide funds to a State that has 
     not certified on a quarterly basis to the Attorney General 
     that 95 percent or more of the records of the State 
     evidencing a State judicial or executive determination by 
     reason of which a person is described in paragraph (2) are 
     sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to support 
     implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background 
     Check System established under section 103 of the Brady 
     Handgun Violence Protection Act.
       (2) A person is described in this paragraph if the person 
     is described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (8), or (9) of 
     subsection (g) or subsection (n) of section 922 of title 18, 
     United States Code.
       (b) The Attorney General may prescribe guidelines and issue 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section.
       (c) This section shall take effect on the date that is 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DINGELL (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 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple. It will ensure 
that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS, will 
catch more criminals and it will ensure that the system works properly 
as the Congress intended.
  The Instant Check System took 5 years to build and cost roughly a 
quarter of a billion dollars of the taxpayers' money. However, despite 
the time and money expended, the system is not working.
  The FBI has stated that 1,700 prohibited purchasers have received 
firearms because the Federal system does not have all the records it 
needs.

                              {time}  1930

  The New York Times reports that Colorado has stopped using the 
Federal system because it is incomplete. States are not carrying out 
their responsibilities under this. The amendment would fix these 
problems. Quite simply, it would require States to certify quarterly 
that 95 percent of all available records are in the national criminal 
database. By demanding accountability from the States, the Congress 
will ensure that FBI background checks will be complete, accurate and 
thorough. If that can be accomplished, fewer criminals will slip 
through the cracks and the national system of instant checks will work.
  I would like to think of my amendment as putting ``instant'' back 
into instant check. There will be more records, better records and 
citizens will not face unnecessary delays. This is how the Congress 
intended it to work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply say that I very much agree with the intent 
of the gentleman's amendment and I hope that it can be accomplished.
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank my good friend for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my distinguished friend from New 
York.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to stand with the 
gentleman from Michigan and to express my support for improving the 
National Instant Check System.
  Just this week the State of Colorado announced its intention to 
return to a State-based instant check system because of a deadly 
mistake that occurred under the Federal instant check system. In June, 
Simon Gonzalez, who should have been prevented from buying a firearm, 
was able to buy a gun. After buying the gun, he used it to kill his 
three sleeping children. It is clear that we need a better instant 
check system.
  Do not get me wrong. The National Instant Check System has been an 
important tool in keeping guns out of the hands of felons. Since 
November last year, when the system was started, 50,000 prohibited 
persons have been stopped from purchasing firearms. But we can do 
better.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Michigan to ensure 
that our instant check system is improved. In particular, we will be 
watching to ensure that States and the FBI increase their cooperation 
and bring the National Instant Check System up to speed.
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Kentucky, the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for any comments he wants 
to make. I think desperately we need to make this system work and I 
would ask his comments.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman would be 
withdrawing the amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. I do intend to withdraw the amendment, but I would like 
to hear the thoughts of the gentleman first.
  Mr. ROGERS. I commend the gentleman for taking this active interest 
in the matter. I will continue to work with the gentleman to ensure 
that the system works as Congress intended.

[[Page H7368]]

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment and hope that we can do something to make this system work, 
to make the States participate, and to see to it that the Federal 
Government does what it is supposed to do to make the system work to 
catch criminals and to abate the pressure on honest, law-abiding 
citizens.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the filing of a complaint, or any motion seeking 
     declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant thereto, in any 
     legal action brought under section 102(b)(2) of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3312(b)(2)) or section 102(b)(2) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3512(b)(2)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kucinich/
Ros-Lehtinen amendment.
  We have a strong and proud tradition in this country of respecting 
local decisionmaking, particularly when it furthers broad public 
interests. And those public interests include clean air and water, 
consumer protections and workers' rights.
  A good number of us in this chamber have expressed our concerns about 
NAFTA because of provisions in that treaty that pose a threat to our 
national interests in safeguarding our environment and upholding 
workers' rights. In one instance, a Canadian chemical firm is 
challenging a California law crafted to protect that state's drinking 
water. If the company prevails, an important environmental protection 
would be overturned and U.S. taxpayers would have to foot the bill for 
any damages awarded.
  A similar scenario could also unfold through the World Trade 
Organization, where a foreign corporation or government can take issue 
with a local or state law in the United States. A favorable ruling from 
the WTO would compel the U.S. government to use its resources to 
overturn the offending local statute. The Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen 
amendment would stop the federal government from taking such action, 
and protect the rights of state and local governments.
  As the pace of economic globalization heightens, we should be very 
wary of sacrificing state and local laws at the altar of ill-defined 
international investor rights. Free trade should mean fair trade, and 
fair trade should not trammel the power of state and local governments 
to act in the public interest.
  I urge adoption of the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide the 
time, 2\1/2\ minutes for myself and 2\1/2\ minutes that would be 
managed by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  (Mr. SHOWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
Representatives Kucinich and Ros-Lehtinen, which protects American laws 
from being overridden by the NAFTA tribunal.
  Here's the story:
  A Canadian funeral conglomerate, the Loewen Group, was the defendant 
in a Mississippi lawsuit alleging fraudulent and malicious practices to 
ruin a local small funeral home operator. The jury found Loewen liable 
for huge damages.
  Now, Loewen is claiming that the Mississippi Court ruling violated 
protections granted by NAFTA, and is seeking hundreds of millions of 
dollars in compensation. If the NAFTA tribunal finds in favor of 
Loewen, then the Justice Department would be obliged to sue the State 
of Mississippi.
  This is nuts!
  The Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment will deny taxpayer funds to the 
Justice Department for that legal challenge, thereby protecting 
Mississippi's laws.
  We must stand together to protect the sovereignty of American laws. 
We should not allow American taxpayer dollars pay American lawyers to 
help a foreign corporation fight American state laws in court.
  Support this important amendment!
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time and 
I support his amendment.
  Earlier in the year, California issued a ban on the gasoline additive 
MTBE which is known to cause cancer. A Canadian company that makes the 
additive is now attempting to use NAFTA in order to claim $1 billion in 
losses, saying their right to make a profit has been diminished, which 
may force California to consider rolling back the ban.
  The question this amendment addresses is the question that this issue 
addresses, as it is very clear: Should the rights of an investor come 
before the rights to enact a chemical ban to prevent cancer? What is 
happening in these trade laws is that they are rolling back State and 
local laws all across the country, designed to help the environment, 
designed to promote human rights, designed to move this country forward 
on issues that consumers care deeply about.
  This is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Kucinich amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
seek the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the Kucinich amendment. The 
U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, recently 
wrote a letter expressing her very strong opposition to this amendment. 
In that letter she said, and I quote, ``This is unnecessary and ill-
advised.''
  Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with what Ambassador Barshefsky 
said. This amendment is unnecessary. Never in the history of either the 
GATT, its 50 years, or NAFTA, its 5 years, has the Federal Government 
brought suit against a State, municipal or local government to enforce 
a NAFTA or GATT panel decision. Never.
  Now, opponents will say, well, if it is unnecessary, why not just go 
ahead and vote for it? Because, to use the other half of Ambassador 
Barshefsky's phrase, it is ill-advised. This amendment revisits a 
question that was resolved by the American people over 200 years ago, 
the relationship between the regulation of international commerce and 
the rights of States and local governments to enact their own laws, and 
we did decide that. In 1789, our Founding Fathers put this argument to 
rest. We had had the fiasco of the Articles of Confederation where each 
State could impose its own tariff and tax structure and that was put 
aside and replaced with, as we know, ``a more perfect union.''
  Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says, ``The Congress shall 
have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the 
several States.'' Article 6 of the Constitution says the laws and the 
treaties of the U.S. are the ``supreme law of the land.'' The fact is 
international agreements are entered into on behalf of the American 
people, all the American people, not just a single town or State, and 
they are for the benefit of all Americans, and necessarily they 
sometimes do preempt State, local and municipal laws.
  Our Founding Fathers made that decision a long time ago. We ought not 
to pass this. I urge my colleagues to defeat this.

[[Page H7369]]

         Executive Office of the President, Office of the United 
           States Trade Representative,
                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1999.
     Hon. Jim Kolbe,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Kolbe: I am writing to express my 
     strong opposition to the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment to 
     the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 2000. That amendment would prevent the Administration 
     from taking legal action to enforce U.S. international trade 
     and investment obligations at the State and local level. The 
     amendment is unnecessary and ill-advised.
       The amendment appears to be founded on a faulty premise. 
     The premise is that dispute settlement panels convened under 
     the World Trade Organization (WTO) and under our other trade 
     and investment agreements have the authority to compel the 
     United States to follow their recommendations and thus will 
     inevitably lead the federal government to sue our State and 
     local governments into compliance. That is simply wrong.
       In fact, neither WTO dispute settlement panels, nor the WTO 
     itself, has any power to compel the United States to change 
     its laws and regulations. More specifically, the federal 
     government is under no obligation to sue a State or 
     municipality on the basis of any WTO or other trade panel 
     report. Only the United States can decide how it will 
     respond, if at all, to panel reports.
       In fact, trade panel reports are not binding as a matter of 
     U.S. law and cannot form the basis for bringing suit in U.S. 
     Courts. Indeed, federal law (section 102(a)(2)(B)(i) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act) specifically precludes the 
     federal courts from giving WTO panel reports any special 
     deference.
       Global trade rules have been in effect now for over 50 
     years. Despite scores of panel reports over the past decades, 
     the federal government has never brought suit, or even 
     threatened suit, to enforce a panel report against a state or 
     local government.
       Congress has carefully considered the question of federal-
     state relations under both the WTO and the NAFTA. Federal law 
     today contains elaborate consultation and cooperation 
     requirements to ensure that the Executive Branch will work 
     with, not against, our state and local governments both in 
     dispute settlement proceedings and in carrying out U.S. 
     obligations under our trade agreements. Those arrangements 
     are working well, as our experience with the Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts demonstrates, where USTR worked closely and 
     cooperatively with Commonwealth of Massachusetts officials in 
     consultations convened by the European Union and Japan last 
     year.
       Over the past five years, fully one-third of U.S. economic 
     growth has been tied to our dynamic export sector. American 
     workers and companies depend on open markets around the 
     world. Congress and the Administration have worked very hard, 
     over many decades, to put trade rules in place that open 
     those markets--and to keep them open through effective 
     dispute settlement procedures. The United States is by far 
     the most frequent user of international trade dispute 
     settlement mechanisms. They have benefitted U.S. workers and 
     industries across a wide range of sectors, and were put in 
     place at U.S. insistence with our sovereignty concerns fully 
     in mind. No change in U.S. law is needed to ensure that this 
     remains the case.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charlene Barshefsky.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, in support of the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen 
amendment.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time. I rise in support of the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment.
  The States have police power rights under the Constitution that the 
executive branch of our Nation ought to respect.
  If the States are taking action contrary to a U.S. treaty obligation, 
it is the Congress that should resolve the problem. On the other hand, 
the parties that are being hurt can sue and get relief. This is not a 
place for unelected Federal bureaucrats to involve themselves by 
attacking these laws in the courts.
  The Simon Wiesenthal Center backs this amendment. That is because 
some States have, quite rightly, pressured foreign companies who have 
unreturned Holocaust-era assets to make restitution to the victims a 
condition of the granting of the right to do business. These policies 
may be subject to attack by the executive branch unless this amendment 
passes.
  Accordingly, I fully support the amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment so that NAFTA will not 
force California to have to live with MTBE gasoline additives.
  I rise in support of the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment because I 
believe that state and local governments should be able to act to 
protect the public interest without being unnecessarily restrained by 
trade agreements.
  Increasingly we have seen that international trade agreements like 
NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, instead of promoting high 
international standards, can undermine the most basic protections for 
workers and the environment.
  Federal laws to protect clean air and endangered turtles have been 
weakened to comply with WTO rulings, and numerous state and local laws 
are currently threatened. In California alone, 95 laws have been 
identified as potentially ``WTO illegal'' by the Georgetown University 
Law Center.
  Just last month, a Canadian company initiated a NAFTA suit against 
the state of California's phase out of MTBE, a gasoline additive that 
has polluted water supplies nationwide. If the Canadian company 
succeeds, the federal government could sue California to change its 
law. This amendment would deny funding for that type of lawsuit and 
thereby protect state and local laws.
  I think that California, like other states, has a legitimate right to 
protect the health of its citizens and should not be subject to a 
lawsuit for this action.
  Unfortunately, this lawsuit against California's action is just the 
tip of the iceberg. The laws of many other states and local governments 
could be challenged next. Potentially trade-illegal are laws to promote 
recycled materials, encourage the purchase, of local or American goods, 
and protect human rights.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment 
to ensure that all levels of government are able to act in the public 
interest without the threat of trade lawsuits.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the Kucinich Ros/Lehtinen amendment 
protects State and local laws and sovereignty.
  The past year has proven that State and local laws are under assault 
by means of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. In the past year, 
foreign corporations have challenged laws in Mississippi and 
California, claiming that the States violated NAFTA's chapter 11 
foreign investor rights.
  In Mississippi, a Canadian-based funeral conglomerate is seeking 
hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in compensation. In 
California, a Canadian chemical company is challenging a State ban 
prohibiting the use of a harmful gasoline additive on the grounds that 
the Canadian company will lose future profits as a result of the ban. 
The State of New Jersey has enacted ``buy local'' materials 
requirements for the construction of public works projects that the 
European Union says is WTO illegal.
  California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, New York, Ohio and West Virginia have adopted tax 
regulations so that foreign-owned corporations would pay their fair 
share of taxes. The European Union says this is WTO illegal.
  Is Congress prepared to allow the States to be the subject of an 
assault by foreign corporations and nations? This amendment says 
``no.''
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). As chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, I oppose this amendment because 
of the damaging effect it would have on U.S.

[[Page H7370]]

firms and workers whose success in export markets depends on a system 
of fair and transparent international trade rules.
  The WTO has no power to compel a change in United States Federal law 
or regulation or a State law or regulation. Any decision to comply with 
a WTO panel report is solely an internal decision of the United States. 
As a practical matter, this means Congress and the administration can 
choose to act, but only in close consultation with the States, as is 
required under legislation Congress passed enacting the Uruguay Round 
Trade Agreements and NAFTA. My colleagues should recall that Congress 
gave careful consideration to the interests of the States when it 
implemented these trade agreements.
  As the world's largest exporter and the greatest beneficiary of a 
fair and transparent set of trade rules, the U.S. cannot afford to 
allow a conflicting web of international trade rules at the local 
level. Unless trade sanctions are well-conceived and imposed in a 
uniform manner, consistent with our international trade obligations, 
the result will be a hodgepodge of trade sanctions that tells our 
trading partners that the U.S. does not intend to respect the 
international trade agreements it signs.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich.
  This amendment would prohibit the use of funds appropriated by this 
bill to challenge a State law on the grounds that it is inconsistent 
with the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement or NAFTA. This is an antitrade, 
anti-export amendment that would encourage States and localities to 
enact legislation imposing trade sanctions on trading partners, in 
violation of our international obligations.
  The House defeated this amendment soundly when it was offered last 
Congress to H.R. 4276 and I urge strong defeat tonight.
  As chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, I oppose this 
amendment because of the damaging effect it would have on United States 
firms and workers whose success in export markets depends on a system 
of fair and transparent international trade rules. By denying the 
authority of the Federal Government to take legal action to enforce 
international trade obligations of the United States, the amendment 
gives free reign to those supporting the proliferation of ad hoc trade 
sanctions at the State and local level.
  The Founding Fathers were clear in their view that local communities 
are not in a good position to legislate on international trade and 
foreign policy matters. The need for uniformity among the States in the 
conduct of international trade is enshrined in Article I, section 8 of 
the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority ``to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations.'' As Daniel Webster described, ``the 
prevailing motive (of Article I, section 8) was to regulate commerce; 
to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences 
resulting from legislation of so many States, and to place it under the 
protection of a uniform law.'' In cases where there is a conflict 
between an act of Congress that regulates commerce, and state or local 
legislation, Federal law enjoys supremacy.
  The proponents of this amendment seek to establish the ability of 
States and localities to pass legislation prohibiting their agencies 
from procuring goods and services from foreign companies that do 
business with target countries. The case they often site is a 
Massachusetts law sanctioning companies that do business with Burma. It 
should be mentioned that the Federal District Court has ruled that the 
Massachusetts Burma law is an impermissible intrusion into areas 
reserved for the federal government. The First Circuit Court of Appeals 
upheld this decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Record a letter we 
received from Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky opposing this amendment. 
She points out that the Kucinich amendment is founded on a faulty 
premise. This faulty premise is that dispute settlement panels convened 
under the WTO have the authority to compel the Federal Government to 
sue State and local governments into compliance with the WTO. This is 
simply incorrect.
  The WTO has no power to compel a change in United States federal law 
or regulation or a state law or regulation. Any decision to comply with 
a WTO panel report is solely an internal decision of the United States. 
As a practical matter, this means Congress and the Administration can 
choose to act, but only in close consultation with the States, as is 
required under legislation Congress passed enacting the Uruguay Round 
Trade Agreements and NAFTA. My colleagues should recall that Congress 
gave careful consideration to the interests of the States when it 
implemented these trade agreements. The fact of the matter is that 
during the 50 years of operation of the GATT/WTO trading system, the 
federal government has never brought suit against a state or locality, 
or even threatened a suit, to enforce a panel report.
  As the world's largest exporter and the greatest beneficiary of a 
fair and transparent set of trade rules, the United States cannot 
afford to allow a conflicting web of international trade rules at the 
local level. Unless trade sanctions are well-conceived and imposed in a 
uniform manner, consistent with our international trade obligations, 
the result will be a hodgepodge of trade sanctions that tells our 
trading partners that the United States does not intend to respect the 
international trade agreements it signs.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to prevent the use of taxpayer 
funds to defend the interests of foreign companies and governments 
against our own States and municipalities and laws that are aimed at 
protecting the American people.
  This amendment is in keeping with the commerce clause in the 
Constitution and with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. Through 
the WTO, several doctrines which the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized 
govern the stewardship of property and natural resources are directly 
threatened. Even free speech in the form of consumer choice campaigns 
is being threatened. At immediate risk are laws that various State 
legislatures have passed or are considering against Swiss banks that 
have held assets stolen from Holocaust victims. NAFTA has also become a 
tool of choice by corporations such as the Canadian firm Methanex which 
is petitioning for a NAFTA tribunal to overturn a California law which 
bans certain gasoline additives because it poisons the drinking water. 
My own State of Florida, which has enacted inspection requirements, is 
facing possible NAFTA and WTO challenges.
  Are my colleagues to allow families' health and that of our children, 
our friends and neighbors to be threatened because of foreign 
bureaucrats? I ask my colleagues to support our amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich 
amendment.
  The Kucinich-Ros-Lehtinen amendment would prohibit the federal 
government from challenging state or local laws that are inconsistent 
with U.S. treaty obligations. The purpose of the amendment is to 
protect unconstitutional trade sanctions levied by localities and 
states against foreign nations.
  In recent years, there has been a proliferation of economic sanctions 
enacted by municipalities and states against foreign countries. These 
laws are in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution, in that they 
interfere with the federal government's exclusive authority to conduct 
foreign policy and regulate foreign commerce.
  A key element of U.S. foreign policy is the ability of the federal 
government to influence the actions of foreign governments through the 
use of very powerful tool: the withholding of United States economic 
engagement. The federal government must have a cohesive and coherent 
policy in order to bring this power to bear.
  The future of our economic prosperity in the global market depends on 
the United States having balanced trade relations with foreign nations. 
We must confront rogue nations, not as fifty states or countless 
municipalities, but as a strong, unified nation with a clear foreign 
policy agenda. The Kucinich/Ros-Lehtinen amendment would undercut these 
goals by promoting state and local infringements on federal foreign 
policy making.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Kucinich amendment.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, this is nothing but a back-
door attempt at protectionism.
  Think about what would happen if we pass this amendment. We would let 
our cities and states and counties decide what our trade policy is. We 
would be setting up the same kind

[[Page H7371]]

of protectionism and breaking down the kind of standards that we have 
fought so hard to protect under the World Trade Organization and under 
the GATT.
  We're having enough trouble getting other countries to keep their 
markets open. Think about their response if we were to enact this 
amendment.
  Those other countries whose products are being discriminated against 
will retaliate against the United States, and they would have every 
right to do it under the trade agreements we have signed. They would 
not have the right to do it so long as the U.S. follows the rules. But 
if we allow our cities and states and counties to break the trade rules 
we've agreed to, then we give them free license to discriminate against 
American products and hurt American workers.
  I realize there are many in this body who do not like the NAFTA 
agreement who would like to take some feel-good unilateral actions 
without suffering any consequences.
  I would say to those people--if you don't like NAFTA, let's talk 
about NAFTA. If you don't like WTO, which was also passed by a Democrat 
Congress and signed by a Democrat President, then let's talk about it. 
One-third of the growth of this wonderful economic situation we find 
ourselves in today is due to exports. If you want to pretend that 
American workers don't benefit from trade, we can (and will) debate 
that.
  But it's wrong to go around and suggest that--instead of having a 
national trade policy--we are going to let Cleveland or Cincinnati or 
San Francisco or Des Moines or any other city determine our nation's 
trade policy. I'm as pro-federalism as any Member of this body, but I 
don't believe that city councils, county commissions and state 
legislatures should dictate our trade policy with other countries. And 
make no mistake about it, that's what this bill would do.
  Let's fight for a fair and free trading system. Let's protect and 
improve the trading system we have. Reject this senseless amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in strong opposition to the 
Kucinich amendment. This is clearly an anti-trade, anti-export 
amendment that would have the effect of encouraging a breakdown in our 
system of international commerce. The Constitution specifically grants 
Congress and only Congress the authority to regulate commerce with 
foreign nations. The authors of the Constitution intended for this 
section to protect international commerce from the destructive 
consequences of varying trade legislation across hundreds and hundreds 
of local and State governments.

                              {time}  1945

  This amendment goes in the other direction. It would effectively take 
away the ability to conduct foreign policy away from Congress and away 
from the President.
  I would ask everyone in the body, strongly support a no vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my friend from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich. This is clearly 
an anti-trade, anti-export amendment that would have the effect of 
encouraging a breakdown in our system of international commerce.
  Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution specifically 
grants Congress, and only Congress, the authority ``to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations.''
  The authors of the Constitution intended for this section to protect 
international commerce from the destructive consequences of varying 
trade legislation across hundreds of state and local governments. As a 
result of this foresight, in cases where there are conflicts between an 
act of Congress that regulates international commerce and a state or 
local law, the federal law prevails.
  In order to maintain our international agreements and expand trade 
opportunities for American workers and businesses, it is essential to 
uphold this constitutional authority of the federal government.
  This amendment, however, proposes to take our country in another 
direction. This amendment would effectively take the ability to conduct 
foreign policy away from Congress and the President and place it in the 
hands of hundreds of state and local governments. Obviously, this would 
remove the stability of U.S. foreign relations and damage the 
credibility of the United States in negotiating international treaties. 
In addition, the stability and predictability of international business 
relations in the United States would be threatened, angering our allies 
and forcing them to consider retaliatory actions.
  Numerous Congresses and presidents have worked extremely hard to 
establish trade agreements that open markets around the world and keep 
them open through effective dispute settlement procedures. These 
procedures have benefited American workers and companies across many 
sectors and were put in place at U.S. insistence with our sovereignty 
concerns fully in mind. This amendment would undermine this system and 
risk breakdowns in international agreements we have made with our 
allies.
  One third of this country's economic growth is tied to our dynamic 
export sector and American companies and workers depend on open markets 
throughout the world. We have made great progress by encouraging the 
exchange of American values, goods, and services with our trading 
partners. Now is not the time to reverse this progress by building 
protectionist walls around the U.S.
  I urge my colleagues to support free trade and U.S. engagement 
throughout the world and oppose this protectionist amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the 
amendment. I regret having to do that, but we tried the other approach; 
it was called the Articles of Confederation. We gave it up in 1789. My 
colleagues have heard reference to that. This amendment would 
jeopardize U.S. trade and international relations around the globe. No 
longer would our trading partners have any assurance that the 
agreements they entered into with the United States are safe from being 
arbitrarily changed or even nullified by any one of our 50 States.
  Without the ability to speak as one voice, the United States would 
lose the leverage it needs in both bilateral negotiations and 
multilateral rules-based organizations like the WTO to break down 
foreign barriers to American exports. The resulting impact on American 
exports and American jobs on these exports would really be severely 
harmed.
  This is a very serious amendment; it is very seriously wrong. I urge 
my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, this Member rises in strong opposition to the Kucinich-Ros-
Lehtinen amendment which would prohibit the Federal Government from 
challenging State and local laws that conflict with valid obligations 
the United States has made under international agreements including the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA). This amendment strikes at the very ability of the 
United States Government to negotiate and implement international 
agreements by allowing individual States to enact their own 
discriminatory trade and foreign policy laws.
  It appears to this Member that the underlying motivation for this 
amendment is that its principal proponents do not like the WTO and 
NAFTA and are seeking a back-door way to repeal these beneficial trade 
agreements behind the guise of protecting State and local laws. This 
amendment is nothing more than another attempt at protectionism and it 
comes with very serious and negative constitutional and international 
relations ramifications.
  Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants 
Congress, not the individual States, the authority to ``regulate 
commerce with foreign nations.'' Recognizing the inherent weaknesses of 
the Articles of Confederation in this regard, the drafters of the 
Constitution understood the need for uniformity among the States in the 
conduct of international trade. We tried this approach and abandoned it 
in 1789. In cases where there is a conflict between an act of Congress 
that regulates commerce and State or local legislation, Federal law 
enjoys supremacy. The Kucinich amendment would undermine the Federal 
Government's ability to challenge State and local laws in court when 
they conflict with Federal commitments and, therefore, upsets this 
important constitutional balance.
  As fully debated in the House during the consideration of both the 
WTO and NAFTA, American sovereignty is in no way diminished by these 
trade agreements. The implementing statutes of both agreements clearly 
state that panel reports under the World Trade Organization dispute 
settlement mechanism or under NAFTA are not binding as a matter of U.S. 
law. Federal law remains supreme and neither

[[Page H7372]]

the WTO nor the NAFTA dispute settlement panels have any power to 
compel any change in U.S. law or regulation. The U.S. Government 
decides how it will respond, if it responds at all, to WTO and NAFTA 
panel reports. Indeed, no foreign entity can nullify State or local 
laws.
  Furthermore, in consideration of both the WTO and NAFTA, the Congress 
established elaborate consultation procedures to protect the interests 
of the States and to ensure that the States do have a formal role in 
any international dispute settlement proceeding that affects State laws 
or policies. Therefore, the Kucinich-Ros-Lehtinen amendment is 
unnecessary.
  The pending amendment could also harm American exports and the jobs 
these exports support in other ways. For example, with this amendment, 
Ohio could put in place a self-serving policy that discriminates 
against Japanese exports in violation of U.S.-Japan trade agreements or 
the WTO agreement. In response, Japan would likely retaliate against 
American--not just Ohio--exports. Japan, for example, could target 
American agricultural products, hurting farmers and agribusiness 
everywhere from Maine to California. Indeed, the self-serving actions 
of just one State to make some symbolic political statement or protect 
a handful of local jobs could jeopardize billions of dollars in key 
American exports that support tens of thousands of American jobs across 
the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment radically changes American trade laws. 
Given the adverse and serious constitutional and international 
relations implications of this amendment, this Member strongly urges 
its rejection.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, neither NAFTA nor the Uruguay round of 
GATT is a treaty. Neither received a two-thirds vote of the other body 
as the Constitution requires for treaties. Congress can support my 
amendment, and the U.S. will still be in full compliance with all 
treaties. We must protect the States from challenges from foreign 
corporations and countries. Let us stand by our States and stand by our 
local communities. Vote for the Kucinich-Ros-Lehtinen amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. This amendment is not anti-trade. It allows for the 
negotiation and implementation of trade agreements, and it even allows 
for constitutional challenges, but it brings that decision within our 
congressional jurisdiction. We are proud of the support that we have 
received from many different groups. Public Citizen supports the 
amendment, Citizen Trade Campaign, United States Business and Industry 
Council, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center which says that this amendment 
will have the effect of forcing foreign companies seeking to do 
business in the United States to comply with the historic 
responsibility to the victims of the holocaust.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support our amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman to close our debate, I yield the balance of 
my time to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules and champion of free 
trade under NAFTA.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 1\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, at the dawn of the second millennium it was 
clear that under the system of feudalism that existed in Europe 
virtually every single township, community, hamlet was able to embark 
upon negotiations for trade outside of its area. The tragic thing is 
that the vision that my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has as we are 
poised for the third millennium is to continue that kind of 
preposterous policy. This is anti-trade, anti-export at a time when our 
economy is thriving, because of the fact that we are gaining 
opportunities in new markets around the world, and the world has access 
to us. Let us not turn backwards. Vote no on the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congressman 
Kucinich's amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill, 
which would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fix 
the inefficiences in the way area codes are distributed. It would also 
allow states to implement their own number conservation plans if the 
FCC does not act in a timely manner.
  The current system for managing numbers is wasteful and illogical, 
and it has caused a completely unnecessary proliferation of new area 
codes in California. From 1947 to 1992, California increased the number 
of area codes to thirteen. It opened a fourteenth area code in 1997 and 
will almost double that number to twenty-six by the end of this year. 
If the system is left in place, forty-one area codes will be in 
existence in the State by 2002. The federal government must exercise 
leadership and relieve this tremendous burden on consumers.
  On May 27, 1999, the FCC adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
consider ways to improve the efficiency of telephone numbers. 
Congressman Kucinich's amendment would simply ensure that the FCC make 
this rulemaking a priority so that meaningful reforms can be adopted as 
quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important 
consumer amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  International trade pacts like NAFTA must not be used as an excuse to 
put profits over public health and the environment. But that's what 
NAFTA's Chapter 11 does. It gives corporations the right to challenge 
our public health laws, environmental laws, even civil jury verdicts as 
``barriers to trade.''
  Just ask the residents of California, who don't want the gasoline 
additive MTBE in their wells, groundwater, and lakes.
  MTBE smells and tastes like turpentine and may cause cancer, yet the 
Canadian corporation Methenex is suing U.S. taxpayers for nearly a 
billion dollars because under NAFTA California's ban of MTBE is 
classified as a barrier to trade.
  Mr. Speaker, we were elected to protect the health and well-being of 
our constituents, not corporations. We need to give our communities the 
right to enact legislation that protects their well-being, not Wall 
Street's profits. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment.
  Reluctant because I believe the underlying aim of its sponsors is a 
positive one.
  States and local communities have played an active role in efforts to 
express and implement their citizens' conscience on a number of vital 
social, moral and economic issues.
  I have been working actively for us to broaden our perspective on 
trade. As the nature of trade has changed, so has our need to broaden 
our view beyond the conventional, too-narrow focus.
  Trade is about more than just opening foreign countries to our goods 
and services. It is also about the ways in which countries regulate 
their labor markets as well as their capital markets, and the 
discussion of trade policy must take that fact into account. That 
debate also must include issues of human and environmental resources, 
as well as intellectual property.
  The trouble with the approach in this amendment is that it 
overreaches, as previous trade policy has underreached.
  The struggle to develop a new consensus on trade policies revolves 
around hammering out national trade policy.
  This does not mean there is no role for the States and local 
institutions. It does mean that it won't work if we end up with 50 or 
150 different international trade policies.
  In the 50 year history of the GATT, including the more recent era of 
the WTO, the U.S. Government has never challenged or threatened to 
challenge a State or local law as violative of world trade agreements.
  In fact, on the rare occasions when this issue has arisen in the 
past, the administration has worked with State, local and foreign 
governments to reach out-of-court solutions.
  Indeed, in enacting the laws that implement the Uruguay Round 
agreements, we were very careful to establish mechanisms that would 
ensure a cooperative relationship between the Federal administration 
and State and local governments on international trade matters. For 
example, measures in the Uruguay Round agreements act include:
  A requirement that the U.S. Trade Representative establish a Federal 
State consultation process, including procedures for taking into 
account information and advice from States in formulating positions on 
matters that directly affect them;
  A requirement that USTR notify a State and consult with its legal 
officers when a foreign government complains about a law of the State;
  When a WTO dispute settlement panel holds a State law to be violative 
of WTO agreements, the USTR must ``consult with the State concerned in 
an effort to develop a mutually agreeable response . . . and shall make 
every effort to ensure that the State concerned is involved in the 
development of the United States position regarding the response.''
  In short, existing law is designed to bring State and local 
governments into the process

[[Page H7373]]

of formulating trade policies that directly affect them, while 
preserving the Federal Government as the central decisionmaking hub. 
This division of labor facilitates our ability to deal with our foreign 
trading partners and encourages that trade policy makers take into 
consideration the interests of all Americans.
  I understand the desire to send a message on the shortcomings of 
American trade policy. We also need to consider the form of our message 
since we are legislators and the consequences of a particular proposal 
if it were to become law must be taken into account.
  The exact language of this amendment says, in sum, that never, under 
any circumstances, could funds under the act be used by the Government 
to participate in any legal action, brought by itself or by any other 
party, where it was argued that a State or local action contravened 
obligations of the national Government under specified comprehensive 
international agreements.
  This kind of an absolute handcuff on Federal power has been urged in 
earlier decades on other vital matters. As we fight for a stronger, 
broader, more relevant American national trade policy, we need to 
remember the role of State and local initiatives. But we cannot 
retrogress to an article of confederation in the vital field of 
national and international economic/trade issues.
  Accordingly, I will vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the 
amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio, which states that none of 
the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation to provide any administrative or other 
support or assistance for any environmentally sensitive Investment Fund 
Project. This amendment is bad for the American people who will lose 
the benefits of new exports, jobs and expanding global markets. It is 
bad for developing countries in need of investment. And finally, 
environmental concerns are protected by the requirement that OPIC 
complete assessments and reports in accordance with stringent 
standards.
  Private Sector investment overseas contributes substantially to both 
the national and foreign policy interests of U.S. citizens. It 
strengthens and expands the U.S. economy by improving U.S. 
competitiveness in the international marketplace. It also helps less 
developed nations expand their economies and become valuable markets 
for U.S. goods and services, thereby increasing U.S. exports and 
creating U.S. jobs.
  OPIC has a broad base of clients from virtually every state and 
industrial sector. In Texas, there has been $5 billion in OPIC 
financing and insurance commitments for projects sponsored by Texas 
companies, $5 billion in U.S. exports generated by Texas Projects and 
18,757 American jobs created by Texas projects. In the last five years, 
OPIC committed projects identified $1 billion in goods and services 
that they will buy from Texas suppliers, 60% of which are small Texas 
businesses. These exports will create 4,515 local jobs in Texas.
  This amendment is bad for developing countries. The Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation is an independent U.S. government agency that 
sells investment services to assist U.S. companies investing in some 
140 emerging economies around the world. Emerging economies need 
assistance in strengthening and in many cases building proper 
infrastructure for successful trade. These projects may involve 
waterways, land, trees, mountains and the atmosphere. Development of 
roads, railways, power sources, telecommunications and other necessary 
projects are all potentially environmental sensitive. We can not stop 
our efforts to assist developing economies as they become competitive 
and enter the global marketplace. We must support these developing 
economies.
  The House of Representatives recently passed the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act supporting an expanded global marketplace. We agreed 
that sub-Saharan Africa with its emerging economies offer a potential 
700 million new consumers for our goods and products. The inclusion of 
developing countries into the broader market has been proven as an 
effective development tool. Viable infrastructures are mandatory. OPIC 
funding should not be hampered.
  This amendment is bad for the environment. OPIC's fund investments 
must meet stringent environmental standards which are higher than any 
other bilateral export credit, investment or insurance agency in the 
world. Environmentally sensitive fund investments undergo a complete 
environmental impact assessment. Environmental sensitive fund projects 
meet OPIC obligations to mitigate potential environmental harm.
  I do not support any action that will reverse U.S. commitment to the 
expansion of the global marketplace and the continuation of our 
economic prosperity. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will 
be postponed.


             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:
       Add at the end of the bill, the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 802. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or 
     perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual 
     orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a 
     serious national problem;
       (2) such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of 
     communities and is deeply divisive;
       (3) existing Federal law is inadequate to address this 
     problem;
       (4) such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways, 
     including--
       (A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups 
     and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape 
     the incidence or risk of such violence; and
       (B) by preventing members of targeted groups from 
     purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining 
     employment or participating in other commercial activity;
       (5) perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence;
       (6) instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to 
     facilitate the commission of such violence;
       (7) such violence is committed using articles that have 
     traveled in interstate commerce;
       (8) violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery 
     can constitute badges and incidents of slavery;
       (9) although many State and local authorities are now and 
     will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the 
     overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, 
     including violent crimes motivated by bias, Federal 
     jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias is 
     necessary to supplement State and local jurisdiction and 
     ensure that justice is achieved in each case;
       (10) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes 
     motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local 
     authorities to work together as partners in the investigation 
     and prosecution of such crimes; and
       (11) the problem of hate crime is sufficiently serious, 
     widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal 
     assistance to States and local jurisdictions.

     SEC. 803. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

       In this title, the term ``hate crime'' has the same meaning 
     as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

     SEC. 804. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, 
     willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the 
     use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to 
     cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any 
     person--
       ``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if--
       ``(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(ii) the acts omitted in violation of this paragraph 
     include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual 
     abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill.
       ``(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, 
     in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully 
     causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of 
     fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause 
     bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or 
     perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability 
     of any person--
       ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

[[Page H7374]]

       ``(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of 
     this paragraph; or
       ``(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph 
     include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual 
     abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances 
     described in this subparagraph are that--
       ``(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the 
     victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a 
     facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce; or
       ``(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign 
     commerce.''.

     SEC. 805. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

       (a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant 
     to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States 
     Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the 
     issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes 
     and shall, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to 
     the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor 
     during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who 
     recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.
       (b) Consistency With Other Guidelines.--In carrying out 
     this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other 
     Federal sentencing guidelines; and
       (2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the 
     same offense.

     SEC. 806. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority to Make Grants.--The Office of Justice 
     Programs of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may 
     prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat 
     hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to 
     train local law enforcement officers in investigating, 
     prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 807. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST 
                   STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the 
     Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 
     2000 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of 
     personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of 
     section 245 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by 
     this Act).

     SEC. 808. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this title, an amendment made by this 
     title, or the application of such provision or amendment to 
     any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, 
     the remainder of this title, the amendments made by this 
     title, and the application of the provisions of such to any 
     person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (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 gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, on this amendment I reserve a point of 
order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard earlier this evening one of the amendments that 
was discussed on this floor. The reason given to its discussion is that 
we have a crisis and an emergency. I believe that we have a crisis.
  We have a crisis right now as it relates to the standards of violence 
and hatred in America. We had a hearing yesterday on the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act, or 2 days ago in the Committee on the Judiciary, a bill 
authored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) with now 180 
sponsors. And in that hearing I offered as an example of the ugly 
hatred in America the description of the dismembered body of James Byrd 
out of Jasper, Texas. Although that community rose to the occasion, it 
was a horrific crime that saw his head severed from his body, being 
dragged along a road, his arm severed, his torso one other place. And I 
cited as well the horrible death of Matthew Shepherd, where his 
attackers beat him repeatedly, a gay person in Wyoming, and left him 
for dead. Tragically just a few weeks ago evidence of hatred in 
Illinois. We find out that racial violence in 1997, 58 percent against 
African Americans and 17 percent religious-biased, anti-semitic, sexual 
orientation 13 percent.
  This bill answers the question of our concern. In particular it adds 
protection to religion and gender and sexual orientation, and it also 
provides a nexus to interstate commerce. It was tragic yesterday, Mr. 
Chairman, to hear the grandmother of the woman killed in California 
with her daughter and two daughters, the mother of this woman and the 
grandmother of these two daughters killed, and that grandmother 
repeated to us tragically that the only reason that man beat those 
women to death, the mother and her two daughters, was because I wanted 
to kill women.
  Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues that now is the time for us to 
act. The Senate passed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act more than 2 
months ago. I believe we have a crisis, and I believe the American 
people want us to set high community standards, and those community 
standards, Mr. Chairman, are in fact to pass a Hate Crimes Prevention 
act.
  I would say we have a crisis, we have an emergency, and I would seek 
a waiver, as has been on other amendments, to allow this amendment to 
be passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, commend the gentlewoman 
from Texas for her amendment.
  The Senate, as she has pointed out, has acted 2 months ago. We need 
to address the questions that she raises which are before this country 
in so very ugly ways, the James Byrd, the Matthew Shepherd, the 
Illinois situation and the hatred against women that happens in this 
country on a regular basis needs to be addressed. This legislation has 
many cosponsors, it needs to come to the floor, and I commend her for 
her activity on this issue; and I would hope my colleagues would find 
it in their hearts and minds to support this amendment tonight.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding, and once again she has brought to our attention a real 
emergency.
  I heard my colleagues debating on the floor, double booking at 
telephone companies as some kind of an emergency. It does not rise to 
the same level that the nexus affords here that the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has brought to our attention with reference to 
hate crimes. Churches and synagogues have been bombed and desecrated 
often in this country. Gays have been crucified, lesbians run out of 
towns, Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Asians are often set upon just 
because of their race, their national origin or their religion. This 
country fully expects all of us to do all we can to assist in 
alleviating these terrible crimes in our society, and this is a 
methodology that we might employ in order to be able to do that.
  A blues singer once wrote that unless man puts an end to this 
damnable sin, hate will put the world in a flame. If there was ever an 
emergency that needed a waiver, this is the one.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the distinguished ranking 
member.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the work she 
has done on this issue and to tell her that I agree with her, as I do 
with other Members, that this is a serious issue. If we really want to 
talk about emergency in this country, we have come a long way in race 
relations and in understanding each other, but we have a long way to 
go; and it seems that now, when we are having the better economic 
times, this whole issue seems to come back to haunt us, and it is time 
we did something about it, and I commend her on this work. That 
legislation with all those cosponsors should come to the floor. We 
should address this issue and not run away from it any longer.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, and I 
would like to be able to yield to the

[[Page H7375]]

 distinguished chairman, this is not a bill that is going to be rampant 
across the Nation, ensnaring any criminal that would act upon a violent 
act. This is specific. It deals with multiple weapons and multiple 
perpetrators as defined by the FBI, mutilation overkill. We will know 
when it is a hate crime. We will not have to convince prosecutors 
whether to proceed under a simple assault or murder as opposed to a 
hate crimes offense.
  This is a crisis in our Nation. We must stand up and be heard that we 
do not adhere to hate crimes.
   Mr. Chairman, I want to take this time to express my gratitude to 
Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Conyers for recently convening an 
oversight hearing on hate crimes violence in the House Judiciary. I 
listened with keen interest to the testimony of the panelists who were 
invited by the majority. They were overwhelmingly opposed to enacting 
H.R. 1082, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. I was moved by the 
testimony of the victims and family of victims and I am convinced more 
now than ever before that Congress must move with all deliberate speed 
to enact H.R. 1082 this session.
   Mr. Chairman, this nation just celebrated Independence day. We 
reaffirmed the truths that are self-evident, that all men [and women] 
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable rights, that among these rights, are life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness. And yet there are individuals out there who 
believe that if you are not of their race, nationality, gender, 
religion or sexual orientation you do not deserve these rights.
  Opponents of hate crimes legislation claim that prosecution of hate 
crimes would be indistinguishable from offenses that are presently on 
the books on the state and local level. I respect the sophistry and 
sophistication of the arguments that the witnesses posted. However, I 
must state in the most emphatic manner that I can that I disagree with 
their reasoning. I am sure that by now all of you are familiar with 
brutal murder of James Byrd. Can anyone honestly state that it is 
difficult to determine that his killers were motivated by racial animus 
as they dragged his struggling body behind their pickup truck until his 
head and right arm were sheared off upon striking a culvert in the 
road?
  Is it that hard to perceive, after viewing Matthew Shepard's badly 
fractured skull and nearly frozen body left for dead that he was beaten 
by his savage attackers because he was gay? It is this kind of 
excessive brutality that readily indicates that a crime is intended to 
put a whole group in their place. The wounding of community spirit 
caused by these crimes is not addressed anywhere in our laws--hence the 
need for the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999.
  Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's intent was certainly clear, as he went on 
murderous, hate-filled rampage during the Fourth of July weekend in 
Illinois and Indiana. Smith, a follower of the white supremacist group, 
the World Church of the Creator, wounded six Orthodox Jews leaving 
their synagogue in Chicago on Friday, July 2, 1999. Later that day, 
former Northwestern University basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong died 
after being shot in the back by Smith while walking with two of his 
four young children near his suburban Chicago home. Smith then 
proceeded to fire at an Asian couple in the suburb of Northbrook, 
Illinois.
  Mr. Smith's diabolical work did not end there. Saturday, July 3, 1999 
Smith continued his assault by firing at two black men in Springfield, 
Illinois. Twelve hours later, near the University of Illinois, Smith 
shot at six Asian men. One of the men, a graduate student, was 
seriously wounded.
  In the July 4th attack, Smith lay in wait outside of the Korean 
United Methodist Church in Bloomington, Indiana before fatally shooting 
26-year-old Won-Joon Yoon in the back twice. Smith then ended his own 
life after being cornered by the police in a high speed chase. In the 
aftermath of this killing spree, people are asking why this 21-year-old 
college student and son of affluent parents committed such atrocities. 
Chicago Police Department spokesman Patrick Camden may have summed it 
up best when he said that ``. . . beyond just pure hate, we may never 
know what set him off.''
  According to a Sunday, July 11, 1999 Washington Post article, hate is 
what led two brothers, Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler 
Williams to have allegedly shot and killed a gay couple sleeping in 
their home north of San Francisco. These same brothers are suspects in 
the arsons at three Sacramento area synagogues where the damage is 
estimated to be more than $1 million. Police authorities discovered an 
arsenal in the Williams' car which included two assault rifles, two 
handguns, a shotgun and a substantial amount of ammunition. Authorities 
have also found in the brothers' home materials from the World Church 
of the Creator.
  World Church of the Creator members have been connected to numerous 
hate crimes in recent years, including the 1993 bombing of an NAACP 
office in Tacoma, Washington, the 1997 beating of a black man and his 
teenage son outside a theater in Sunrise, Florida, and last year's 
beating of a Jewish video store owner in Hollywood, Florida.
  The World Church of the Creator and its members are not the only 
individuals responsible for hate crimes. Indeed, the number of hate 
crimes may be vastly underreported. Silent victims afraid of reporting 
crimes to the police, bureaucratic snags and confusion over what 
constitutes a hate crime are some of the reasons such crimes are 
underreported and undercounted nationwide, experts say.
  The Hate Crimes Statistics Act, passed in 1990, required the FBI to 
report annually on the number of bias crimes committed. The problem, 
according to Donald Green, a Yale University Professor of Political 
Science and an expert on hate crimes is that the reporting of hate 
crimes is voluntary. In the study that Professor Green conducted in the 
State of New York, for example, only 32 of the 502 law enforcement 
agencies submitted reports to the FBI in 1997. Nationwide, of the 100 
most populous cities in the U.S., 10 did not participate in the 
reporting of hate crime data at all. Professor Green sums it up, 
thusly, ``The places where hate crimes are taken seriously and reported 
get singled out as bastions of hate, [b]ut jurisdictions that don't 
give a hoot seem like happy bastions of tolerance.''
  What more has to happen before we move to pass H.R. 1082, the Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act of 1999? Existing federal laws are inadequate to 
assist the States and local authorities in prosecuting those who commit 
violent acts against others based upon race, color, national origin, 
religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability. H.R. 1082 would 
rectify this by making it a federal crime to commit a hate crime. I am 
a staunch supporter of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. 
I defend an individual's right to believe in whatever his or her mind 
can so conceive, however morally repugnant. When these beliefs spawn 
hate-related violence, we need to have a mechanism to bring 
perpetrators like Benjamin Smith and Williams brothers to justice.
  Currently, only 22 States and the District of Columbia have adopted 
hate crimes laws that extend protection to individuals targeted based 
on their sexual orientation. Only 22 States cover gender, and 21 cover 
disability. These critical gaps in State laws underscore the need for 
stronger hate crimes protection on the national level.
  Out of the 8,049 hate crimes reported in the most recent FBI 
statistics, 58.5% were racially based; 17.2% were religious based; 
10.4% were based on ethnicity; and 13.7% were based on sexual 
orientation.
  This bill is bipartisan with more than 180 cosponsors, I am confident 
that H.R. 1082 will pass on the House floor, if partisan polarization 
does not kill the bill in committee. We in the Congress have a higher 
moral authority to address crimes that are an affront to human dignity; 
H.R. 1082 is the appropriate measure to address these particularly 
heinous crimes.
  I ask the Chairman to accept this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, with the point of order now being expressed against 
this, let me ask that we can work on this together, and with great 
sadness I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) to engage in 
a colloquy.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I have recently introduced legislation 
with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) regarding a national 
instant background check system. The NIC system has been, as my 
colleagues know, very successful. Since 1998 over 50,000 prescribed 
people have been restricted persons, that is, criminals and others are 
restricted from getting guns. We are learning that this is a tool that 
law enforcement can even do better with; and therefore this legislation 
would require the immediate notification of local law enforcement 
authorities when an individual fails an NICS background check. Even 
though criminals and other restricted persons who attempt to purchase 
firearms are in violation of Federal, State and local laws, rarely are 
such violations reported in a timely manner to proper law enforcement 
authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, establishing a timely notification system would allow 
law enforcement to determine when they

[[Page H7376]]

 believe that there is a threat to public safety in their communities. 
The Illinois State Police has recently established a voluntary program 
modeled on my legislation to notify local law enforcement of such 
checks. I hope to work with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
and the Justice Department to implement this system at a national 
level.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing his 
proposal to our attention. We have not really had a full amount of time 
to study the proposal, but I would be happy to work with him to enhance 
our enforcement efforts.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, I would again like to thank him and the ranking member for their 
support and willingness to work with me on this very important matter. 
As my colleagues know, this is a concept that has the support of both 
Handgun Control and the NRA, and when we think of Charlton Heston, I 
have heard him several times talk about the necessity to enforce 
existing laws so that criminals do not get guns. It is as if he were 
playing Moses again, and he came down from the mountain top, and this 
was his eleventh commandment. I think we are working in that direction 
to do that, and I again would applaud the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) for allowing us to work together on this.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at the conclusion of this bill. We have several 
amendments ready for the Members to cast their votes on very shortly. 
Before we do that, I wanted to take a moment to thank some people for 
their help on this bill. This has been a tough bill to draft and to 
mark up and to process through this great body. We have had the 
cooperation of so many people.
  I want to first mention my compadre, my friend, our coworker, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member of this 
subcommittee, who has been a real gentleman in his first year on the 
subcommittee, and that year as the ranking member. This is a tough bill 
to understand and to comprehend, it covers a lot of ground, and the 
gentleman did so with great grace and humor and expertise.
  I want to thank him personally, as well as the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking 
member of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
and all the members of the subcommittee who put so many hours into the 
hearings, a total of 23 hearings on this bill.
  I want to thank the members of the full Committee, and, of course, 
the Members of this body who have paid attention to this debate, who 
participated, who had a lot of amendments and had their full say. So we 
appreciate that very much.
  We would not be here without our staff on both sides of the aisle and 
of the Committee staff, who have done such a wonderful job in trying to 
keep track of all the amendments and all the major portions of this 
bill. The staff that is with us on the floor on both sides of the 
aisle, the staff in our offices, who participated in this as well. We 
could not be here without their great work in making this happen.
  I want to say also, and I think my colleagues would join me, in 
saying what a great job the Chairman of this Committee of the Whole has 
done in governing the debate of this bill. The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) has done a wonderful job, and we all 
appreciate the great fair-mindedness and fair-handedness with which he 
has handled this debate. We appreciate it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I also want to join the gentleman in 
thanking and congratulating the Chair. I have done that in the past, 
and hope to do it in the future, by the way, but I sat there in the 
past and know how it is. I also want to thank him for a very liberal 
stop watch. I think the word ``liberal'' is fitting at this point.
  To you, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for setting the tone for 
the debate the last 2 days. They have been long hours, a lot of 
amendments, a lot of discussion, but I think your opening remarks kind 
of set the tone for the behavior.
  I want to join the gentleman in thanking the staff on both sides and 
thanking the staffs in our offices, who only got to see us on TV and 
have not seen us for the last 2 days.
  Once again, I want to thank you, sir, for the respect you show me and 
the courtesy you show me. No matter what the end vote is tonight, as we 
move on to conference and to the work we have to do, I look forward to 
working with you in the same friendship and amity that we have shared 
for all this time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last 3 lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.


          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:
  First amendment in House Report 106-284 by Mr. Bass of New Hampshire;
  Amendment No. 13 by Mr. George Miller of California;
  Amendment by Mr. Hayworth of Arizona;
  Amendment by Mr. Tauzin of Louisiana;
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Bass

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the first amendment printed in House Report 106-284 offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated 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 169, 
noes 256, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 381]

                               AYES--169

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dixon
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pitts
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey

[[Page H7377]]



                               NOES--256

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bilbray
     Frank (MA)
     Lantos
     Leach
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2025

  Ms. McCARTHY of New York, and Messrs. DEUTSCH, ROEMER, PHELPS, ROGAN, 
KING, and WU, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. CUMMINGS, and Mr. DOYLE 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PITTS, GILCHREST, TIAHRT, and BEREUTER, Ms. DeGETTE, and 
Messrs. McHUGH, HOLDEN, and ROHRABACHER, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. NAPOLITANO, 
and Mr. WHITFIELD 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 No. 13 Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated 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 211, 
noes 215, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 382]

                               AYES--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--215

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey

[[Page H7378]]


     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bilbray
     Frank (MA)
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2034

  Mr. ROTHMAN and Mr. DOOLEY of California changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered By Mr. Hayworth

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by a 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 217, 
noes 209, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 383]

                               AYES--217

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

                               NOES--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bilbray
     Frank (MA)
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2042

  Mr. HOBSON and Mr. DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Tauzin

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated 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 374, 
noes 49, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--374

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter

[[Page H7379]]


     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--49

     Baird
     Barrett (WI)
     Brown (OH)
     Clement
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Forbes
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Hinchey
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pomeroy
     Rogers
     Royce
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Stark
     Stupak
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wilson

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bilbray
     DeFazio
     Edwards
     Gutierrez
     Lantos
     Levin
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2049

  Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I was absent on rollcall vote 384. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 226, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               AYES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--226

     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Cubin
     Ewing
     Istook
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes
     Stearns

                              {time}  2055

  Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

[[Page H7380]]

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 385, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 385, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2670, 
the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Bill for 
Fiscal Year 2000.
  This is my first year on the Appropriations Committee as well as on 
the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee, and I have very much enjoyed my 
tenure so far. Chairman Hal Rogers, who has served on the subcommittee 
for many years and who demonstrated his experience through weeks of 
budget oversight hearings, graciously welcomed my participation and 
made me and other new members of the subcommittee feel at home. The new 
members also include Jose Serrano, who has been a pleasure to work with 
and has demonstrated outstanding ability as ranking member.
  The wide range of agencies and activities funded by the bill present 
a real challenge. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 
the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice and the trade, 
science, and economic development activities of the Department of 
Commerce as well as the operations of the State Department, create 
significant budget tensions as we wrestle with the fairest way in which 
to distribute our limited budget allocation. In addition to the entire 
judicial branch of government, the bill also funds important 
independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). To say this is a complex bill to put 
together and to fund adequately is an understatement.
  I would like to thank Chairman Rogers for including a number of 
projects and issues that are important to me, my congressional district 
and California.
  Funding is included for two important crime prevention activities 
which affect my district directly. The Los Angeles Dads Young Men and 
Fathers Program is a collaborative effort between the juvenile court 
and community schools and the Los Angeles County Probation Department 
working together with law enforcement, business and community partners. 
This program reaches out to males, ages 14 to 18, who are under the 
authority of the Juvenile Court and are either fathers themselves or 
father figures. The goal is to help young fathers take responsibility 
for the health and well-being of their families and themselves.
  Funding is also provided for a community violence initiative in Los 
Angeles that will expand the successful LAPD domestic abuse response 
team that both deals with women and children at the scene and allocates 
special investigative and prosecution services to act quickly against 
crimes of domestic violence.
  I was also pleased that the full committee adopted report language 
about sexual misconduct by staff of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The 
Bureau of Prisons generally has a good record of dealing with sexual 
misconduct by staff and sexual harassment of female inmates. However, a 
recent General Accounting Office report revealed that there were some 
deficiencies in the records maintained by BOP about sexual abuse that 
prevented them from recognizing trends and responding to problem areas. 
The language directs BOP to comply with the GAO recommendations, and 
I'm pleased that BOP already is moving ahead to do so.
  Several items are of enormous importance to California.
  The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) is funded at last 
year's funding level, $585 million. However, I will be working with 
other members of a united California delegation to see if we can't 
increase this funding level to $650 million this year. California will 
spend over $570 million this year for housing and parole supervision of 
undocumented aliens. Since California receives only a portion of this 
SCAAP funding, it is important to raise this funding level as high as 
possible.
  Within Community Oriented Policing Services, the methamphetamine 
program is very important to California. Recent Justice Department 
statistics indicate that 90% of the ``meth'' seized throughout the 
United States originated in California. These funds will assist the 
California Bureau of Narcotics in coping with this newer but alarming 
drug threat.
  As a coastal state, California is very dependent on the important 
oceanic and atmospheric research underway by NOAA's National Ocean 
Service. Funding for the geodesy programs will play a key role in the 
important research underway at the Scripps Institute at the University 
of California at San Diego and its California Spatial Reference Center.
  Despite these many worthwhile initiatives, I will reluctantly have to 
vote against the bill.
  Simply put, this bill's budget allocation is not sufficient to fund 
the many other deserving programs and activities carried out by the 
Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce.
  Trying to overcome this inadequate funding, the Republican majority 
has decided to designate $4.5 billion for the census to be emergency 
spending outside the budget caps and our budget allocation. However, 
the total amount is still nearly $3 billion less than the President's 
budget request. As a result, many programs or agencies are cut 
severely, and other important agencies are set at the level of last 
year's appropriations bill, meaning they must absorb both cost-of-
living adjustments for personnel and other uncontrollable cost 
increases.
  In addition, the bill provides no funding for the President's 21st 
Century policing initiative modeled after the Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS) initiative which has been so successful in 
helping our cities and communities reduce crime. The original committee 
recommendation cut Legal Services Corporation severely--from $300 
million to $141 million--thereby undermining our commitment to ensuring 
that all Americans, regardless of income, have access to the judicial 
system. Reduced funding affects the FBI, the DEA, anti-drug program 
initiatives as well as activities to protect against chemical and 
biological weapons and other counter-terrorism activities. The 
successful Advanced Technology Program, which Congress has established 
at a level of approximately $200 million for many years, is eliminated. 
Inadequate funding is provided for the President's Lands Legacy 
initiative, and other National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) funding is significantly reduced. The SBA's salaries and 
expenses account is cut so severely that the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) estimates that 75 percent of the agency's current staff 
level--up to 2,400 staff positions--would have to be eliminated. There 
is no funding for SBA's promising new markets initiatives which many of 
us are counting on to spur economic development in targeted urban and 
rural areas.
  In short, the funding is inadequate, so our bill falls short of what 
the American people require and should expect from the important 
programs and agencies in this bill. I believe Chairman Rogers and those 
who serve on this subcommittee recognize its shortcomings, and I 
believe we will need to make this a far better bill before it becomes 
law later this year.
  Although I must in all good conscience vote against the bill today, I 
will be working with Chairman Rogers, Ranking Democrat Serrano and the 
rest of our members to fund this bill adequately and pass it into law 
so our people and our communities can continue to receive the types of 
assistance provided in this bill, and we can work together to fight 
crime, improve trade, stimulate economic development, and carry out the 
many important activities represented by the Commerce-Justice-State 
bill.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to this appropriations bill because it cuts funding for some of the 
most important programs that we provide for this nation.
  For instance, this bill seriously cuts funding for the COPS program 
by 81%. When President Clinton was first elected in 1992, he promised 
to put 100,000 additional cops on the streets. With the help of 
Congress, he managed to do this. However, it is imprudent to think that 
the hiring of these cops is enough. There is still much more we can do 
to ensure that our streets are safe.
  President Clinton asked for funding to his 21st Century Policing 
Initiative which would put 50,000 more officers in our districts. It 
would also allow our communities to hire new prosecutors, and more 
importantly it would expand community-based prevention efforts. We need 
to continue funding this program adequately to ensure that our streets 
are safe. Unfortunately, H.R. 2670 does not do that.
  And I am extremely disappointed that this bill eliminates funding for 
the East-West and the North-South Centers.
  The East-West Center is an internationally respected research and 
educational institution based in Hawaii with a 39-year record of 
achievement. It is an important forum for the development of policies 
to promote stability and economic and social development in the Asia-
Pacific region.
  The Asia-Pacific region accounts for more than half the world's 
population, about a third of the world's economy, and vast marine and 
land resources. The United States has a vital national interest in 
connecting itself in partnership with the region. As the Asia-Pacific 
region continues to develop and change, it is essential that the United 
States be seen as a part of the region rather than an outsider.
  The East-West Center is the only program that has a strategic mission 
of developing a

[[Page H7381]]

consensus on key policy issues in U.S.-Asia-Pacific relations through 
intensive cooperative research and training. Likewise, the North-South 
Center plays a key role in the development of U.S. interest in Latin 
America.
  These Centers are small but very cost-effective organizations. They 
complement the foreign policy objectives of the United States by 
providing another dimension of engagement with leaders in Asia, the 
Pacific. And they help to increase the mutual understanding and 
cooperation that is essential for constructive relationships among the 
nations of these important regions. They must not be cut.
  H.R. 2670 also appropriates $4.8 billion for the Census Bureau. 
Although this is an increase of $3.4 billion, the appropriators 
designated $4.5 billion of this as emergency spending.
  This should not be classified as an emergency. It is not an 
emergency. We have known for over 200 years that we were going to need 
money for the 2000 Census; it is required by our Constitution. We have 
had all that time to plan for this Census, yet we did nothing.
  Classifying this money as emergency spending, does nothing more than 
take money away from our surpluses. We keep taking money away from our 
surpluses for emergencies that aren't really emergencies. Our surpluses 
should be reserved for saving Social Security and Medicare.
  In all actuality, we don't even have surpluses to use for this 
emergency spending. This excess money that we keep touting as our 
wonderful budget surpluses is Social Security's money. If we don't 
count the revenue that is brought in from Social Security taxes, our 
surplus would be nonexistent.
  An increase to the Census Bureau is essential. The 1990 census left 
out four million Americans. It was the most inaccurate census in 
history, and the undercount severely impacted communities with large 
minority populations. For Asians and Pacific Islanders, the undercount 
was 2.3 percent, which led to a significant reduction in funding for 
federal programs.
  According to the National Academy of Sciences, the key to an accurate 
census is the use of modern statistical methods. However, a recent 
Supreme Court decision is requiring the Census Bureau to do a 
traditional head count next year. That system is an expensive, slow and 
cumbersome process. And it is incredibly difficult to count the urban 
and rural poor and minorities under the traditional approach. The 
increased funding is needed to ensure everyone is counted.
  We cannot afford to make the same mistakes as we did in 1990. The 
stakes are too high. We need increased funding, however, we can't do it 
at the expense of Social Security and Medicare.
  Unfortunately, I could go on and on about the horrible cuts in this 
bill.
  For instance, cuts in the Small Business Administration could lead to 
the elimination of 75% of the agency's current staff level. My 
colleagues across the aisle are often touting their commitment to small 
businesses, however, this bill fails to live up to their promises. It 
is apparent from this bill, that their main concern does not lie with 
small businesses but with large ones.
  The Small Business Administration is vital to small business across 
the country. It provides technical services, financial advice, and 
general support for those businesses. Large corporations have the 
luxury of in-house counsel to assist in these needs. Small businesses 
do not. They often turn to the SBA to provide them with the guidance 
and assistance they need. Unfortunately, without the proper staffing 
levels, the SBA will be unable to assist the majority of the businesses 
that make requests for help.
  This bill also has deep cuts in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and the National Weather Service that will have a 
devastating impact on all Americans. The National Weather Service is 
essential to the safety of every single one of us. I am always amazed 
when there is an effort to eliminate or cut the funding for this 
agency.
  The National Weather Service provides warnings to thousands of 
Americans about tornadoes, hurricanes, flash floods, and countless 
other weather conditions that are or could be dangerous to communities. 
Because of these warnings, thousands of lives are saved each year. In 
my state of Hawaii, it is essential that we are kept up to date about 
possible hurricanes.
  I cannot support a bill that could hurt my state's ability to deal 
with these natural disasters.
  This bill has a number of good things in it. It calls for increases 
in a number of extremely important programs and services. However, I 
cannot support it. I cannot support this bill, because at the same time 
it increases funding for essential and vital programs, it slashes or 
eliminates funding for countless others.
  Because of these unwise and crippling cuts, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 2670.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concerns about the 
funding level included in this bill for NOAA's programs, particularly 
those of the National Weather Service. The funding levels in this bill 
fall short of the Administration's request and the Science Committee's 
recommendations for these programs.
  The programs of the National Weather Service are of great importance 
to the people of my district, and indeed to all of our constituents. 
Over the past few Congresses, we have invested several billion dollars 
in the weather service modernization program. The Weather Service has 
not completed the deployment of the Advanced Weather Information 
Processing System (AWIPS). Now, when we are about to reap the largest 
benefits of this program, we are unable to provide the additional $18 
million to deploy advanced software which will improve severe storm 
warning lead times, reduce false alarm rates, and improve severe storm 
detection--improvements which can save lives. The importance of this 
new technology was recently demonstrated during the May tornado 
outbreak in Oklahoma and Kansas. The funding levels in this bill 
represent a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to government spending.
  In order to accommodate the funding needs of the Small Business 
Administration and the Census Bureau, the Committee designated almost 
$5 billion dollars as ``emergency'' spending to take these expenditures 
off-budget. I don't deny the importance of these programs, but they can 
hardly be classified as emergencies. We know the Census Bureau has a 
constitutional responsibility to conduct the census periodically. The 
Small Business Administration programs are worthy of our support, but 
if they are funded under emergency provisions, I cannot understand why 
we wouldn't fully fund the National Weather Service Programs under the 
same criteria.
  The National Weather Service is a critical federal agency that 
affects every citizen, every day. The employees in the National Weather 
Service offices across this country need adequate resources to continue 
to deliver the fine service to us that we have all become accustomed 
to. I hope that the Conference with the Senate will produce a bill that 
contains more realistic funding levels for NOAA and for the other 
essential programs funded under this appropriations bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
funding to help the Northwest Region respond to the listings of 13 
salmon and steelhead populations under the Endangered Species Act and 
to implement the recently signed Pacific Salmon Treaty between the U.S. 
and Canada.
  I understand that the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee was 
unable, under the current allocations, to provide funding for these 
administration requests. Unfortunately, this puts our region in a very 
difficult position for trying to comply with the federal law.
  In March, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the salmon and 
steelhead populations whose habitat encompasses nearly the entire west 
coast. In the Puget Sound region, which I represent, we are working to 
respond to these listings. The listings threaten to completely halt all 
routine activities in the area such as development, operations of 
ports, and basic transportation projects.
  Our state has responded positively, with both the state and local 
government taking a proactive approach to dealing with these problems, 
but federal funds are critical. Currently, we are working with the 
National Marine Fisheries Services to develop locally-driven, 
scientifically credible recovery strategies to restore these 
populations but we cannot do this alone. I ask that we find the federal 
funding to help address this situation.
  In addition, I am extremely please about the recently announced 
agreement between the U.S. and Canada on the Pacific Salmon Treaty 
which sets harvest and conservation measures for the multi-
jurisdictional salmon populations. This agreement solves a number of 
long-standing disputes and is an incredibly important step for saving 
the salmon in the Northwest region. Now, to ensure that the necessary 
conservation and restoration goals are met, the White House has asked 
Congress to create an endowment fund for both the Northern and Southern 
boundary areas. I strongly support Congress finding the funding to 
ensure implementation of this historic agreement.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his 
great appreciation to the Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), and the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), and to all members of the 
Subcommittee for the inclusion of a $500,000 appropriation for planning 
and site money for a detention center in Grand Island, Nebraska.
  This country's interior illegal immigration problems have grossly 
been ignored, in part

[[Page H7382]]

because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has been 
unwilling to acknowledge the exponential increase in the interior's 
illegal alien population. In addition to failing to acknowledge the 
population increase, the agency has not devoted the necessary funds for 
the development of the infrastructure to allow its officials to 
implement one of this country's fundamental immigration laws--that 
illegal aliens are to be deported from the United States.
  Although the proposed project will not be in this Member's district, 
this Member strongly believes the facility will serve an important role 
in building the aforementioned infrastructure. The detention facility 
will provide a crucial link between the apprehension and the 
deportation of illegal aliens in Nebraska and Iowa. It will be 
beneficial not only in conjunction with worksite enforcement programs 
such as Operation Vanguard, which the Subcommittee mentions, but also 
with efforts to deter alien smuggling.
  In recent years, Interstate 80, which traverses the states, has 
become a popular venue for alien smuggling. After apprehending 
suspected illegal aliens, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) has few options for detaining the suspects. Detention space in 
county jails has become severely limited. As a city centrally located 
along I-80, Grand Island, Nebraska, certainly will serve well as the 
primary site of the modular detention center.
  In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member wishes to acknowledge and 
express his most sincere appreciation for the assistance that Chairman 
Rogers, the Subcommittee, especially the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham), and the Subcommittee staff provided thus far on this important 
project.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments under a previous 
order of the House, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Quinn) 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 273, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BONIOR. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bonior moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2670 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House with an amendment that increases the 
     amount provided for community oriented policing services to 
     the amount requested in the President's budget, with 
     corresponding adjustments to keep the bill within the 
     committee 302(b) allocation.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the House could 
not hear the motion, and I would ask that the Clerk reread the motion.
  The Speaker pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will reread the motion.
  The Clerk reread the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, let me just take this 
opportunity to commend the distinguished gentleman from Washington 
State (Mr. Hastings) for the efficient and fair way in which he handled 
the proceedings over the last 2 days and, I might also add, the way 
that the chairman of the committee the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) have also 
conducted themselves. We appreciate their work this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, the shootings in Littleton, Atlanta, and just today in 
Pelham, Alabama, strike fear into our hearts. As parents, we worry 
about our children. We worry about our safety. We worry about our 
children's safety in the schools.
  Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the statistics show that crime is declining 
in America. Thanks to the bravery and the hard work of our police, the 
numbers of burglaries and assaults and vehicle thefts and murders and 
robberies all dropped again last year.
  But we still have a long way to go. We need tougher law enforcement. 
We need to keep our streets and our schools and our homes safe. We 
cannot do any of this without more police officers in our communities, 
Mr. Speaker, walking the beat, patrolling our neighborhoods, cracking 
down on crime.
  The COPS program helps local police departments hire more officers 
and puts them out on the street. To date this funding has put 80,000 
officers into action across this country fighting crime and getting 
results.
  In my district alone, 85 extra police officers now walk the beat or 
patrol the streets. Just this spring, Macomb County, Port Huron, Fort 
Gratiot, Capac and Clay Townships all got grants to hire new officers. 
And that has happened in every district throughout this country. They 
help avert problems before they happen and give people a sense of 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, all this is happening in communities, as I say, across 
the country. So why in the world would this Congress slash funding for 
more police officers? Why would we cut $1 billion below last year's 
level? It just does not make any sense.
  I am offering this motion to restore full funding for the COPS 
program for community policing so that we can win the war on crime.
  The President has promised to veto this bill if it arrives at his 
desk without enough money to hire police that this country needs. If we 
are going to win the fight against crime, we are going to have to 
restore these monies.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to win this battle. It is going to happen 
either tonight in this motion or it is going to happen in conference. 
But we will win this battle.
  Let us send back this bill and fund the COPS program and then bring 
it back to this body. Please vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides $268 million, that is the authorized 
level, for fiscal 2000 for the COPS program. Every penny of the 
authorized level is in this bill.
  About 3 weeks ago there was a big ceremony down at the White House 
where they celebrated, they say, the addition and the completion of the 
COPS program, 100,000 cops on the beat. Now they want a new program. We 
fully funded the COPS program as we have known it. Now they want a new 
program.
  In fact, the administration's request is not only not authorized, but 
the administration has not even bothered to submit authorizing 
legislation for this new $1.3 billion program.
  Instead of the administration's so-called COPS II program, this bill 
provides big grant programs for our local and State police. It gives 
our local governments the ability to decide how best to spend the money 
on fighting crime, not what some bureaucrat in Washington says we 
should do in spending the money.
  By the way, on school violence, in this bill is $192.5 million for 
school violence programs, $130 million for local law enforcement 
technology grant, $25 million for bulletproof vests for law 
enforcement, and $285 million for juvenile justice prevention programs.
  In this bill is the Congressional version of COPS, the local grants 
that allow our communities to decide how and when to spend the money. 
It does not require a matching grant, as does the COPS program. We give 
it all, and we do not limit it to what they can spend it for.
  In this bill we provide $1.2 billion, more than the administration 
requested, for State and local law enforcement; $523 million for local 
law enforcement block grants, they requested zero; $686 million for 
truth-in-sentencing block grants, they requested $75 million; $250 
million for the

[[Page H7383]]

juvenile accountability block grant, they requested zero; $585 million 
for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, more than they 
requested; $552 million for the Byrne Grant Program, for which they 
requested $100 million less.
  These grants provide the assistance to our State and local law 
enforcement that they want, not what the bureaucrats in Washington 
want.
  These are the programs, my colleagues, that would be required to be 
cut to fund this new, unauthorized COPS program that the administration 
feels so strongly about that they have not even bothered to send up 
legislation to authorize it. These are the programs that have helped 
bring about the crime rate reductions that are making historic notes 
today.
  We can tell our colleagues today that, mainly because of the local 
block grants that this Congress provided over the last 3 years, the 
violent crime rate is at its lowest level since it has been recorded. 
These are the programs that would be cut by this recommittal amendment.
  Let me finish by saying this: This motion would kill this bill. It 
would require the whole bill to go back to subcommittee and full 
committee for re-hearings and a re-determination of how we would fund 
the cut required by this amendment.
  We would be here tomorrow, we would be here Saturday, we would be 
here next week, at least, trying to find the money. I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 219, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 386]

                               AYES--208

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

                               NOES--219

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bilbray
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2125

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the schedule for the 
rest of the evening.
  Mr. Speaker, we will next take up the rule for VA-HUD which is 
debatable for 1 hour. We expect a recorded vote on the VA-HUD rule.
  We then plan to call up the conference report on H.R. 1905, the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The conference report will be 
debated for 20 minutes, followed by a recorded vote. Mr. Speaker, 
Members should note that we expect the vote on the Legislative Branch 
conference report to be the last vote for the evening.
  The House will then consider a number of noncontroversial bills:
  H.R. 2116, the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act; a motion to go to 
conference on S. 1467, a bill to extend the funding levels for aviation 
programs for 60 days; S. 507, the conference report for the Water 
Resources Development Act.
  Mr. Speaker, that means we will be in late tonight, but I know that 
Members will be pleased to finish all legislative business tonight so 
that they can return to their districts and their families first thing 
in the morning.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Chair will remind the Members that this is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 210, not voting 7, as follows:

[[Page H7384]]

                             [Roll No. 387]

                               YEAS--217

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

                               NAYS--210

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bilbray
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes

                              {time}  2142

  Mr. DINGELL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CRANE and Mr. ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 387, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________